<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in
east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen
character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests
reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the
same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder
how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique
case.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in
east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen
character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare
access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests
reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the
same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include
information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder
how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique
case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
Nick
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder
how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique
case.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in
east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen >>character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests >>reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the
same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique >>case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
On 2025-05-28, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in >>>east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen >>>character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>>access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests >>>reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the >>>same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>>information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>>how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique >>>case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article: >><https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
I guess the "breakthrough" didn't lead anywhere though, since there
appear to be no reports of any prosecution subsequent to the June 2024 >reports of the arrest. The whole thing sounds rather tragic given the
suspect would have been around 15 at the time of the baby's death.
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in
east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen
character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>> access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests
reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the
same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>> information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>> how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique
case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
Nick
This BBC article doesn’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian >website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in >>>> east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen
character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>>> access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests
reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the
same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>>> information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>>> how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique >>>> case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
Nick
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian
website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
The BBC article is factual. I chose that Guardian article because the emphasis in my original post was on the human side of tragedies like
these.
Nick
On Wed, 28 May 2025 11:08:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in >>>>east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen >>>>character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>>>access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests >>>>reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the >>>>same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>>>information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>>>how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique >>>>case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has
its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in
this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and
the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article: >>><https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
I guess the "breakthrough" didn't lead anywhere though, since there
appear to be no reports of any prosecution subsequent to the June 2024 >>reports of the arrest. The whole thing sounds rather tragic given the >>suspect would have been around 15 at the time of the baby's death.
Genuine question: given the very personal nature of this 43-year-old
story would there be publicity restrictions in place here?
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8003>
"On a cold night in January 2024 a dog walker finds a baby in a bag in >>>>> east London, UK - a foundling. She is named Elsa, after the Frozen
character. Reporter Sanchia Berg begins to follow the case, gaining rare >>>>> access to the Family Court and to the police investigation. DNA tests >>>>> reveal Elsa is the sibling of two other babies found abandoned in the >>>>> same area over recent years. What has happened to the mother?"
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include >>>>> information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder >>>>> how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique >>>>> case.
I heard this programme yesterday and again very early this morning.
It's a reminder, perhaps, that the law is just an instrument we
sometimes use to cope with humanity in all its variations. The law has >>>> its limitations but people don't - which is why the people involved in >>>> this case still strive for a resolution - whatever it takes.
It reminds me of the unknown dead baby discovered in 1982 in
Northampton and cared about ever since by the couple who found her and >>>> the investigating authorities the past forty-three years.
There was a breakthrough in the case last year as described in this
article:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/20/couple-laid-to-rest-baby-found-strangled-northampton-1982>
Trigger warning: I can't read this story without welling up inside.
Nick
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian
website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing
restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads
and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going elsewhere to a source that was.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does include
information from the Family Court and the police investigation. I wonder
how many thousands of hours of investigation have gone into this unique
case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation
have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation
have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here.
With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
On 28 May 2025 at 14:40:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation >>>>> have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public
space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here.
With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
If none of the babies' relatives have been arrested in recent years which DNA database would you expect them to be one.
I would suggest that a public policy of not checking abandoned babies' DNA at least until the age of 18 (when they could choose to do so) would be good for the survival of unwanted babies.
On 28 May 2025 at 14:40:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation >>>>> have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public
space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here.
With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
If none of the babies' relatives have been arrested in recent years which DNA database would you expect them to be one.
I would suggest that a public policy of not checking abandoned babies' DNA at least until the age of 18 (when they could choose to do so) would be good for the survival of unwanted babies.
This BBC article doesn’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian website:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation
have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here.
With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation
have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here.
With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
On 2025-05-28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 14:40:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does
include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation >>>>>> have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of
the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public >>> space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here. >>> With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
If none of the babies' relatives have been arrested in recent years which DNA
database would you expect them to be one.
The 23andMe one might be up for sale soon.
I would suggest that a public policy of not checking abandoned babies' DNA at
least until the age of 18 (when they could choose to do so) would be good for
the survival of unwanted babies.
On 28 May 2025 at 18:29:27 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Roger Hayter wrote:
If none of the babies' relatives have been arrested in recent years which DNA
database would you expect them to be one.
The 23andMe one might be up for sale soon.
By its owners or by criminals?
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian >>>> website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing
restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads
and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going
elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian >>>>> website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing
restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
 A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
 Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does not
show the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
 Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com, adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net, casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads >>> and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going >>> elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
 Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
On 28 May 2025 at 18:29:27 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 14:40:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 14:13:58 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:57:19 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Perhaps it's somewhat tangential to most posts here, but it does >>>>>>> include information from the Family Court and the police
investigation. I wonder how many thousands of hours of investigation >>>>>>> have gone into this unique case.
And still not really understand the problem. Clearly.
What is the problem? That some humans are unwanted? Quelle surprise!
No. That's just the headline for the people who like clickbait.
Personally the real story (that nobody wants to hear) is that in one of >>>> the most industrially advanced cities in the world it is possible for
someone to carry a child to term and abandon it within a walk of a public >>>> space and not be found.
3 times in a row.
Makes you (well me) wonder how much else is being missed.
It's also interesting how the statistics of DNA aren't stacking up here. >>>> With 3 admitted siblings, and the scope of various national and
international databases, the lack of any more details is telling.
If none of the babies' relatives have been arrested in recent years which DNA
database would you expect them to be one.
The 23andMe one might be up for sale soon.
By its owners or by criminals?
On 29/05/2025 10:15, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
Even in a private window? Why not?
  Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the device >> you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I use Firefox that has a private browsing mode. It isolates the browser
such the only tracking information that can be garnered is your IP address.
There is no access to any other cookie or data apart from the websites you visit in this private window. When you close the private window all data, cookies etc are deleted.
On 29/05/2025 13:37, Fredxx wrote:As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
On 29/05/2025 10:15, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
Even in a private window? Why not?
  Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I use Firefox that has a private browsing mode. It isolates the
browser such the only tracking information that can be garnered is
your IP address.
 Where is that documented ?
There is no access to any other cookie or data apart from the websites
you visit in this private window. When you close the private window
all data, cookies etc are deleted.
"It also doesn’t prevent the websites you visit from seeing where you
are physically located "
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/05/2025 13:37, Fredxx wrote:As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
On 29/05/2025 10:15, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:I use Firefox that has a private browsing mode. It isolates the
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ? >>>
browser such the only tracking information that can be garnered is
your IP address.
Where is that documented ?
There is no access to any other cookie or data apart from the websites
you visit in this private window. When you close the private window
all data, cookies etc are deleted.
"It also doesn’t prevent the websites you visit from seeing where you
are physically located "
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use
Tor, or a proxy.
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use
Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use >>> Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
(Slightly amusingly, it puts the marker right on top of my wife's place of work, although I presume that's just coincidence).
Mark
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/05/2025 13:37, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/05/2025 10:15, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:I use Firefox that has a private browsing mode. It isolates the
Even in a private window? Why not?
  Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ? >>>
browser such the only tracking information that can be garnered is
your IP address.
 Where is that documented ?
As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has aThere is no access to any other cookie or data apart from the websites
you visit in this private window. When you close the private window
all data, cookies etc are deleted.
"It also doesn’t prevent the websites you visit from seeing where you
are physically located "
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use
Tor, or a proxy.
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use >>> Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
(Slightly amusingly, it puts the marker right on top of my wife's place of work, although I presume that's just coincidence).
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian >>>>> website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing
restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does not show
the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com,
adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net, casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads >>> and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going >>> elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the Guardian >>>>>> website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's nothing >>>>> restricting access to that article that a single mouse-click won't
dismiss.
A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does not show >> the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com,
adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net,
casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads >>>> and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going >>>> elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian, razor keen to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and wide as it can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering visitor data that may well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The ones that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate interest’ buttons
to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned. Others’ mileage may vary.
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use >>> Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
(Slightly amusingly, it puts the marker right on top of my wife's place of work, although I presume that's just coincidence).
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the
Guardian website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's
nothing restricting access to that article that a single
mouse-click won't dismiss.
A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does not
show
the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com,
adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net,
casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised >>>>> ads and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of
going elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian, razor
keen to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and
wide as it can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering visitor
data that may well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The
ones that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate
interest’ buttons to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned. Others’
mileage may vary.
We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set
by the browser. I blame the EU.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 21:55:35 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the
Guardian website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's
nothing restricting access to that article that a single
mouse-click won't dismiss.
A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does not >>>> show
the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com,
adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net,
casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised >>>>>> ads and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of >>>>>> going elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian, razor
keen to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and
wide as it can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering visitor
data that may well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The
ones that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate
interest’ buttons to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned. Others’
mileage may vary.
We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set
by the browser. I blame the EU.
Except the UK is no longer a member of the EU. So it's no longer anything
to do with me.
I am sick and tired and sick and tired of people talking Brexit down.
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a
good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you use >>> Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All (personalised ads >>>>> and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of going >>>>> elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
 Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the device >>> you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian, razor keen >> to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and wide as it
can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering visitor data that may >> well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The ones >> that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate interest’ buttons
to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned. Others’ mileage may vary.
We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set by
the browser. I blame the EU.
On 30/05/2025 21:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All
(personalised ads and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe. >>>>>>
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of >>>>>> going elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
 Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
 device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian, razor
keen to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and
wide as it can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering
visitor data that may well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The
ones that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate
interest’ buttons to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned.
Others’ mileage may vary.
We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set
by the browser. I blame the EU.
"Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU; and
then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all' with
not even the current description of what that entails, and possibly the 'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
On 29/05/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial
geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is
obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my town: >>
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with Firefox >private browsing.
On 30/05/2025 21:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All
(personalised ads
and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe.
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of >>>>>> going
elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
 Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian,
razor keen
to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far and wide
as it
can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering visitor data
that may
well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The ones >>> that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate interest’
buttons
to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned. Others’ mileage may vary. >>
by the browser. I blame the EU.
 "Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU; and then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all' with
not even the current description of what that entails, and possibly the 'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:33:24 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
"Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU; and
then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable
javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all' with
not even the current description of what that entails, and possibly the
'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
All of that ignores the fact the UK isn't a member of the EU.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:56:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:33:24 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
"Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU;
and
then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable
javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all' with
not even the current description of what that entails, and possibly
the 'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
All of that ignores the fact the UK isn't a member of the EU.
It was when the current legislation was brought in. We could change it
now if we wanted, but the government has probably got more pressing
things to be concerned about.
Meanwhile, the growing inability to track users across multiple sessions
and multiple websites has massively impacted advertising revenue for
sites (such as the Guardian) which rely on it. Hence the equally massive increase in popups urging you to become a subscriber. And, possibly a
little counterintuitively, the excessively intrusive advertising now
found on many websites is also a direct response to this change. Because
if each advert is only earning a quarter of what it used to, then the
obvious response is to quadruple the number of adverts.
On 31/05/2025 10:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 21:55:35 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2025 15:49, Spike wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:08, Spike wrote:
Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 28 May 2025 10:27:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
This BBC article doesnÂ’t have the access restrictions of the >>>>>>>>> Guardian website:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz55e8k50xmo>
Thanks for that.
Two things:
The Guardian has a philosophy of open access to all. There's
nothing restricting access to that article that a single
mouse-click won't dismiss.
A mouse click on 'Accept all' ?
Perhaps we want to click on '132 partners' first, but that does
not show
the partners. Perhaps click on 'View all partners'?
Does not seem to mention csync.loopme.me, scorecardresearch.com,
adnxs.com, copper6.com, dnacdn.net, dotmetrics.com, eversttech.net,
casalemedia.com ...
The choices in The Guardian web site are to Accept All
(personalised ads and all cookies) or to Reject All and Subscribe. >>>>>>>
I don’t find either choice acceptable, so took a third option of >>>>>>> going elsewhere to a source that was.
Even in a private window? Why not?
Do we then just trust that 'Technical characteristics about the
device
you are using that are not unique to you' really are not unique ?
I just find it amazing that a media outlet such as The Guardian,
razor keen to peddle its soft-left, woke, genderist etc agenda as far
and wide as it can, has such an authoritarian approach to gathering
visitor data that may well be monetised further down the line.
I never proceed with websites that do not present me with a button to
Reject All. And that’s my choice - other outlets are available. The
ones that merely present a list of several hundred ‘legitimate
interest’ buttons to turn off, can FRO as far as I’m concerned.
Others’
mileage may vary.
We shouldn't have to ""reject all"; that should be the default, or set
by the browser. I blame the EU.
Except the UK is no longer a member of the EU. So it's no longer
anything to do with me.
I am sick and tired and sick and tired of people talking Brexit down.
So we shouldn't have to put up with all those stupid pop-ups. Especially those which (falsely) claim that they care about our privacy (or
whatever).
On 29/05/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a >>>> good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you
use
Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial
geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is
obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my
town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
 ... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with Firefox private browsing.
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
On 31/05/2025 16:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/05/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a >>>>> good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you >>>>> use
Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial
geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is >>> obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my
town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with Firefox
private browsing.
I don't see your issue.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
Do you really think you're such a person of interest that The Guardian
will take a note of every time you access one of their articles?
Yet you seem happy to let everyone know your IP address. Even that is
now regarded as personal information.
On 31/05/2025 16:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
<snip>
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
I can assure you the UK legislation embodies these rules that was agreed, accepted and enacted by the UK government.
You seem to blame the EU when the UK government always had sovereignty over UK legislation.
Why do you hate mainland Europe so much?
On 31/05/2025 16:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:
  ... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with Firefox
private browsing.
I don't see your issue.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
Do you really think you're such a person of interest that The Guardian will take a note of every time you access one of their articles?
Yet you seem happy to let everyone know your IP address. Even that is now regarded as personal information.
On 31/05/2025 21:01, Fredxx wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
<snip>
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
I can assure you the UK legislation embodies these rules that was agreed,
accepted and enacted by the UK government.
Yes, I know.
You seem to blame the EU when the UK government always had sovereignty over >> UK legislation.
Why do you think I am 'blaming' the EU?
Why do you hate mainland Europe so much?
I don't; nothing I have posted criticises the EU.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:56:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:33:24 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
"Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU; and >>> then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable
javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all' with
not even the current description of what that entails, and possibly the
'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
All of that ignores the fact the UK isn't a member of the EU.
It was when the current legislation was brought in. We could change it now
if we wanted, but the government has probably got more pressing things to be concerned about.
Meanwhile, the growing inability to track users across multiple sessions and multiple websites has massively impacted advertising revenue for sites (such as the Guardian) which rely on it. Hence the equally massive increase in popups urging you to become a subscriber. And, possibly a little counterintuitively, the excessively intrusive advertising now found on many websites is also a direct response to this change. Because if each advert is only earning a quarter of what it used to, then the obvious response is to quadruple the number of adverts.
On 1 Jun 2025 at 11:09:35 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:01, Fredxx wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
<snip>
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
I can assure you the UK legislation embodies these rules that was agreed, >>> accepted and enacted by the UK government.
Yes, I know.
You seem to blame the EU when the UK government always had sovereignty over >>> UK legislation.
Why do you think I am 'blaming' the EU?
Why do you hate mainland Europe so much?
I don't; nothing I have posted criticises the EU.
People do seem to have missed the fact that only the EU has forced web proprietors to limit cookie use in any way, and offer any choices. Though I am
part of that vulgar minority who doesn't care at all, and would be happy without the cookie pop-ups.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 11:25:55 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
So we shouldn't have to put up with all those stupid pop-ups. Especially
those which (falsely) claim that they care about our privacy (or
whatever).
Well unless there is *UK* legislation mandating them, then no, you
shouldn't.
However, like tethered bottle caps, if you find suppliers unwilling to
spend more money on pandering to the fantasies of long gone Brexiteers,
then don't blame me.
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I need to allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
On 01/06/2025 11:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Jun 2025 at 11:09:35 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:01, Fredxx wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
<snip>
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
I can assure you the UK legislation embodies these rules that was agreed, >>>> accepted and enacted by the UK government.
Yes, I know.
You seem to blame the EU when the UK government always had sovereignty over
UK legislation.
Why do you think I am 'blaming' the EU?
Why do you hate mainland Europe so much?
I don't; nothing I have posted criticises the EU.
People do seem to have missed the fact that only the EU has forced web
proprietors to limit cookie use in any way, and offer any choices. Though I am
part of that vulgar minority who doesn't care at all, and would be happy
without the cookie pop-ups.
The pop-ups don't give the user any meaningful choice: they are just annoying. Any choice should be handled automatically by the browser.
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:
  ... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with
Firefox private browsing.
I don't see your issue.
 Giving an accurate description of what private browsing does or doesn't.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own
idiosyncrasies.
Do you really think you're such a person of interest that The Guardian
will take a note of every time you access one of their articles?
 I think they will do that for everyone, as far as they can.
Yet you seem happy to let everyone know your IP address. Even that is
now regarded as personal information.
 I don't have any static IP addresses.
On 31 May 2025 at 20:57:54 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/05/2025 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 29 May 2025 16:37:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 17:31:51 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/features/private-browsing/As per Fredxx's reply, the webserver knows your IP, therefore it has a >>>>>> good chance of getting some degree of geolocation on you, unless you >>>>>> use
Tor, or a proxy.
For most of us it is only location to the UK, and not always that.
It's generally a lot better than that if they subcribe to a commercial >>>> geolocation service. At least, it is for fixed line broadband. Mobile is >>>> obviously different. This site, for example, correctly identifies my
town:
https://www.iplocation.net/myip
... which also shows the operating system and browser - which The
Guardian admits to using for device fingerprinting - even with Firefox
private browsing.
I don't see your issue.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own
idiosyncrasies.
Do you really think you're such a person of interest that The Guardian
will take a note of every time you access one of their articles?
They clearly do, at least at an automatic level, as they keep telling me how many articles of theirs I have read over the years without paying them.
Yet you seem happy to let everyone know your IP address. Even that is
now regarded as personal information.
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own
idiosyncrasies.
    Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it to readers in a way suitable for them to read.
If, as an author, I need to
allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages significantly harder;Â and perhaps expensive.
On 1 Jun 2025 at 11:54:55 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 01/06/2025 11:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Jun 2025 at 11:09:35 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:01, Fredxx wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
<snip>
Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
I can assure you the UK legislation embodies these rules that was agreed, >>>>> accepted and enacted by the UK government.
Yes, I know.
You seem to blame the EU when the UK government always had sovereignty over
UK legislation.
Why do you think I am 'blaming' the EU?
Why do you hate mainland Europe so much?
I don't; nothing I have posted criticises the EU.
People do seem to have missed the fact that only the EU has forced web
proprietors to limit cookie use in any way, and offer any choices. Though I am
part of that vulgar minority who doesn't care at all, and would be happy >>> without the cookie pop-ups.
The pop-ups don't give the user any meaningful choice: they are just
annoying. Any choice should be handled automatically by the browser.
I suppose it would be possible to produce a niche browser that people willing to pay could purchase and might do something like this by analysis of cookies etc.
On 31/05/2025 17:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:56:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:33:24 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
"Reject non-essential" is the default, but only because of the EU;
and
then you can only read the articles if you use reader mode, disable
javascript etc. Without the EU, the default would be 'Accept all'
with not even the current description of what that entails, and
possibly the 'Reject All' which does not actually reject all.
All of that ignores the fact the UK isn't a member of the EU.
It was when the current legislation was brought in. We could change it
now if we wanted, but the government has probably got more pressing
things to be concerned about.
Meanwhile, the growing inability to track users across multiple
sessions and multiple websites has massively impacted advertising
revenue for sites (such as the Guardian) which rely on it. Hence the
equally massive increase in popups urging you to become a subscriber.
And, possibly a little counterintuitively, the excessively intrusive
advertising now found on many websites is also a direct response to
this change. Because if each advert is only earning a quarter of what
it used to, then the obvious response is to quadruple the number of
adverts.
Advertising is the "evil" that Google meant when their catch phrase was "Don't be evil". The inventor of Google just wanted to make a really
useful search engine: he wasn't interested in monetising it.
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:>>> Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.1995 has a disappointing message for you! Lynx used to be useful.
Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it >> to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I need to >> allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages
significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
On 01/06/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
[I wrote]
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:>>> Websites will need to know your1995 has a disappointing message for you! Lynx used to be useful.
browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of >>> HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it >>> to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I need to >>> allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages >>> significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
I assume that by "1995" you mean the DDA and all who sail in her? But the point about Lynx was surely that I, as an author, /didn't/ need to know what browser you were using. I needed to make allowances for [eg] blind readers, but that was taken care of by "alt=..." and similar things in the HTML. Your browser can look at what I've written and decide, in however simple or convoluted way it chooses, how to communicate that to you; *I* don't need to decide that for you.
[FTAOD, that's not a claim that I never need to know anything about "you". If I were trying to sell you things, I might need to check that you are over 18 and in the UK, for example. But not whether you're using Lynx, or indeed a browser you've written yourself.]
On 01/06/2025 11:58, Andy Walker wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:You would think so, but cross-browser compatibility is an issue for web servers.
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.     Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it >> to readers in a way suitable for them to read.
If, as an author, I need toIf you create a noddy website, then there is no issue. If you're pushing limits on what can be done life might not be so simple.
allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages
significantly harder;Â and perhaps expensive.
On 31/05/2025 16:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 11:25:55 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
So we shouldn't have to put up with all those stupid pop-ups.
Especially those which (falsely) claim that they care about our
privacy (or whatever).
Well unless there is *UK* legislation mandating them, then no, you
shouldn't.
However, like tethered bottle caps, if you find suppliers unwilling to
spend more money on pandering to the fantasies of long gone Brexiteers,
then don't blame me.
Don't start me on tethered bottle caps! <g> (What's the point in them, anyway?)
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 12:07:30 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/05/2025 16:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 11:25:55 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
So we shouldn't have to put up with all those stupid pop-ups.
Especially those which (falsely) claim that they care about our
privacy (or whatever).
Well unless there is *UK* legislation mandating them, then no, you
shouldn't.
However, like tethered bottle caps, if you find suppliers unwilling to
spend more money on pandering to the fantasies of long gone Brexiteers,
then don't blame me.
Don't start me on tethered bottle caps! <g> (What's the point in them,
anyway?)
But - as tiresomely predicted before the UK "left" the EU - when manufacturers are faced with a choice of spending extra money on
pandering to a backwater like the UK, or providing a one-size-fits-all product the UK will get the single product. Every. Single. Time.
Tethered bottle caps are merely a visible example of this shadow
compliance. Dig deeper and it will be *everywhere*. Despite the UKs abandoning standards wholesale.
If the UK legislated that not only was there no need for cookie popups,
but that to show them to a UK resident would be unlawful, then quite a
few sites would go dark. Presumably to hysterical headlines from the
Express about the Bullying of Brexit Britain from their usual headline generating app.
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.
Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it >to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I need to >allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages >significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:58:58 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:of
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own
idiosyncrasies.
Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays
it to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I
need to allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing
web pages significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
There was a brief moment of time where that was broadly true. Or,
rather, a couple of fairly brief moments. The first was at the dawn of
the web, when semantic markup was all that mattered. The second was
shortly after HTML5 was introduced but before smartphones became a
dominant means of viewing the web. But the way that a small screen
mobile device and the way that a large screen PC device display web
pages are, of simple necessity, so vastly different that the server has
to know which it is delivering too if it wants to deliver pages that can
be read equally easily on both.
I am particularly impressed by the "apps" that replicate a tiny phone
screen on a 14" iPad pro. It takes dedication and skill to completely undermine an entire demographics accessibility aid.
On 2025-06-03, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I am particularly impressed by the "apps" that replicate a tiny phone
screen on a 14" iPad pro. It takes dedication and skill to completely
undermine an entire demographics accessibility aid.
I think what you're talking about is when you run an iPhone app on an
iPad. It does that automatically. It doesn't take any "dedication and
skill", it just takes not having compiled an iPad version of the app.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:00:23 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-03, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I am particularly impressed by the "apps" that replicate a tiny phone
screen on a 14" iPad pro. It takes dedication and skill to completely
undermine an entire demographics accessibility aid.
I think what you're talking about is when you run an iPhone app on an
iPad. It does that automatically. It doesn't take any "dedication and
skill", it just takes not having compiled an iPad version of the app.
You miss the irony.
And the end result is still an app that is no easier to use on a 14"
screen than a phone. What was the point of spending over £2k on SWMBO
iPad Pro (with magic keyboard) only to have the same experience as a
cheap iPhone ?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:00:23 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-03, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I am particularly impressed by the "apps" that replicate a tiny phone
screen on a 14" iPad pro. It takes dedication and skill to completely
undermine an entire demographics accessibility aid.
I think what you're talking about is when you run an iPhone app on an
iPad. It does that automatically. It doesn't take any "dedication and
skill", it just takes not having compiled an iPad version of the app.
You miss the irony. And the end result is still an app that is no easier
to use on a 14" screen than a phone. What was the point of spending over
£2k on SWMBO iPad Pro (with magic keyboard) only to have the same
experience as a cheap iPhone ?
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:05:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:00:23 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-03, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I am particularly impressed by the "apps" that replicate a tiny phone
screen on a 14" iPad pro. It takes dedication and skill to completely
undermine an entire demographics accessibility aid.
I think what you're talking about is when you run an iPhone app on an
iPad. It does that automatically. It doesn't take any "dedication and
skill", it just takes not having compiled an iPad version of the app.
You miss the irony. And the end result is still an app that is no easier
to use on a 14" screen than a phone. What was the point of spending over >>£2k on SWMBO iPad Pro (with magic keyboard) only to have the same >>experience as a cheap iPhone ?
If only more people would ask themselves that question!
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:58:58 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:57, Fredxx wrote:There was a brief moment of time where that was broadly true. Or, rather, a couple of fairly brief moments. The first was at the dawn of the web, when semantic markup was all that mattered. The second was shortly after HTML5
Websites will need to know your browser as they have their own idiosyncrasies.Web sites /shouldn't/ need to know your browser. The whole point of
HTML was that authors say what they want to say and the browser displays it >> to readers in a way suitable for them to read. If, as an author, I need to >> allow for idiosyncrasies of your browser, then it makes writing web pages
significantly harder; and perhaps expensive.
was introduced but before smartphones became a dominant means of viewing the web.
But the way that a small screen mobile device and the way that a large
screen PC device display web pages are, of simple necessity, so vastly different that the server has to know which it is delivering too if it wants to deliver pages that can be read equally easily on both.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:34:09 |
| Calls: | 9,830 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,325 |
| Posted today: | 1 |