zlacker

http://www.insecam.org/ is another fun one. Random unsecured security cameras from around the world.

>>rwmj+(OP)
Insecam is truly a pearl among websites, when you’re in your feels at 3 am on a random (work)day and then you can look at somewhere at the opposite side of the world that’s already going through the day, maybe it’s already noon there or something.

The vibes hit different

>>rwmj+(OP)
This site has the cookie permissions dialog which has "reject all", but I think this rejects only the "opt-in" cookies.

The "legitimate interest" cookies, which are equally comprehensive but are on a different tab, are not rejected by this, and to reject them you have to turn each one of them off by hand, scrolling down a massive list.

If you select "reject all", the dialog instantly closes, I think with the legitimate interest cookies all in use - but I can't check, because I know of no way to get the dialog back up again, which is why I'm saying "I think".

When sites pop this one up, I leave - and notably, The Register, the UK news site, started using it a year or so ago.

>>casenm+Bn
Do you think that websites really don't track you if you switch all the toggles?

>>casenm+Bn
I enabled the uBlock Origin Annoyances filter to block most of those cookie popups. It's not enabled by default. Clicking "reject all" has no practical effect on my privacy. If I wanted to keep something secret, I'd use e2e encryption instead of making websites do a pinkie promise

>>casenm+Bn
I think usually the standard wording for this option would be something like "Reject all non-essential cookies" and they left out the second part of that sentence. I'm not saying it's OK but maybe it's a mistake that was done in good faith.

>>mastaz+rm1
GP is alluding to the fact that several tracking networks will place their cookies in the "legitimate interest" category, because the rationale is that them making money by monetizing user data is their "legitimate" moneymaking interest.

There's not a lot of good faith in that, and it's arguably not valid according to GDPR.

>>newacc+LC
The issue is the duplicitous nature of the consent form.

If the consent form itself is like that, then you already have no trust in the site, let alone asking the question of whether or not a non-duplicitous consent form could or could not be trusted.