[Bug 337826] Ability to accept/reject cookies on a per-case basis

[epiphany (bugzilla.gnome.org)]

If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at
the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text
at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at:
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337826

  epiphany | Preferences | Ver: unspecified

Martin Ejdestig changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |marejde at gmail.com




------- Comment #8 from Martin Ejdestig  2007-09-25 18:00 UTC -------
Is this dialog enabled by default? If so, why?

It probably doesn't buy you any security. Most users will just instinctively
click "accept" aka "just let me view the *bleep*ing page instead of
interrupting me with stupid questions". It does however interrupt the user's
flow and asks a question they haven't got the slightest chance to give an
"educated" answer to. Nor should they. (Accept cookie?... yes, why not... I
like cookies...). (By educated I mean most people don't want to know how or
have to time to learn how a browser works.)

How does this increase security?

Havoc had a blog post about a similar dialog a couple of years ago, the ssl
certificate dialog (but I can't find it right now). Also, there was a big
thread on one of the Fedora mailinglists (if I remember correctly... or was it
desktop-devel... oh well, can't find that quickly right now either) about
dialogs like these. In short, these dialogs are a way for us (programmers) to
cop out and dump the responsibility on the user. There are better ways.

</rant> :)


-- 
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received
this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving
emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone
if you are having problems with the system.

You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337826.