Why Safari's Not My Main Browser

[kainjow]

Cookies only store information about you that you give the website. It can't extract anything from you that you haven't given to the site already.

If you click an ad, well that's your choice. You chose to tell the advertiser about your interests in their ad. They store that info back on your computer to give you a more interesting selection of ads next time. Would you rather have ads that were of things you were less or more interested in?

I don't get the big deal about cookies. Is it really an invasion of your privacy?

[Viro]

I think certain advertising companies use cookies to keep track of your browsing habits, and this is what Mobius Rex is worried about. I know of some ads that place a cookie in your browser's cache, even if you don't click on the ad. If you surf to another site that has an ad by the same company, they can examine the cookie they placed earlier, and see which site you've come from.

I'm glossing over the details, but that's pretty much what some companies do, hence some see the need for good cookie management.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by fryke

(Hence the pretty easy to understand rules Apple offers for cookies. They should basically cover all important cases.)

Not really. The only settings they offer either A) Allow all sorts of crap you don't want, or B) Deny all sorts of useful things you do want. Nobody should need to make that choice.

This is one more feature the iCab folks nailed years ago that other companies are still clueless about. Oh, if I only I had a browser like iCab with a rendering engine like Safari or Firefox, I'd be in browsing heaven...

You may want to check out PithHelmet. Along with tons of other useful features, PithHelmet adds the ability to specify cookie preferences on a site-by-site basis. PithHelmet is nowhere near as flexible and powerful as iCab, but it goes a long way. (Nothing is as flexible and powerful as iCab; iCab's got the Filtering System of the Gods, and everything else pales before its gloriousness!) Without PithHelmet, I consider Safari to be flat-out unusable. With PithHelmet, Safari is my #1 browser, and I hardly ever need a #2.

Originally Posted by Mobius Rex

ANYTHING that enters my Mac via the internet is my business and my business only, and it's up to me and only me to determine if it is acceptable or not.

I couldn't agree more. I'll never understand how people can be so passive about this, and so critical of people who want to know what the heck is going on with their computer.

[Mobius Rex]

The issue, here, really isn't whether or not cookies are an invasion of one's privacy, but should one expect a full range of cookie control in Safari as exists in most other browsers.
All browsers allow, at the minimum, one to choose between either accepting all cookies or denying all cookies. For many of us, that's not acceptable or practical; some cookies are needed for logging in to forums or bank accounts for example, while other cookies, most other cookies, for whatever reason, are just not wanted.
Whoever wants all cookies accepted certainly has the right to accept all cookies. But those of us who like to decide, on a case by case basis, which cookies to accept and which to deny should have that process facilitated by an ample range of choices.
I, for one, like to have a minimum of cookies allowed and stored in my browsers. Most browsers make that process smooth and easy. Safari doesn't.
And, regarding ads, I personally would prefer an ad free environment. But that's not gonna happen.

[fryke]

Sorry, but both of you seem to be forgetting the third setting of only accepting cookies from sites you visit. Really: It's good for 99.99% of all people and cases. Now if it ain't good enough for you: I understand that. File bug reports to Apple, write E-Mails to them, create threads like this one, that's fine. But I really, really think that Apple's three options are good for basic users. Safari is not the be-all end-all solution to webbrowsing. It's a simple default browser. Anyone's free to choose Firefox or OmniWeb over it.

Simple, fast, feature-laden. Choose two.

[sinclair_tm]

i only use safari on my mac. i say only goto websites that don't spam you w/cookies, and there is nothing to worry about. or you could always do it the manual way and open the file that houses the cookies and delete the ones you don't want. i like the fact the safari uses the k.i.s.s. method to deal w/cookies, much less of a headache for me.

[Mobius Rex]

I've been trying out PithHelmet with Safari for the past several days and it's really quite good!(thanks Mikuro) It's got some really nice features.
I've set it to block all ad and Doubleclick-type cookies, and to delete all new cookies after closing Safari. Makes Safari quite acceptable to weird folk, like me, who have an aversion to cookies.
I still keep several other browsers installed, though, and use them all at different times. Safari or another browser will sometimes balk at accessing a website or page, for whatever reason, so I'll choose another browser and find that I can quickly reach that particular destination.

[fryke]

With PithHelmet, there's one thing to keep in mind: WhenEVER you update Safari or Mac OS X, you have to _disable_ PithHelmet and wait for an update to be released. We've had one thousand too many people on this board who after an update said things like "OS 10.3.9 Update killed Safari" or things like that –*and all of the cases were because PithHelmet failed with a new version of Safari that was included with the update.