What is the ideal cookies policy to ensure relatively usable

Cookies aren't the only web tracking mechanism, you'll also need to disable Safebrowsing, Flash, ads, WebRTC and preferably JS. Also, if you use any Google services, make a separate browser profile just for the botnet activities. I'd recommend using the Rebrand extension to tell profiles apart.

Google Safebrowsing used to simply give you the list of malicious websites, but now it demands that you send all your URLs and hashes of downloaded files, and it never really blocks anything anyways, so use Disconnect's malware domains list for uBlock Origin instead.

As for your policy on cookies, it's perfect.

>>55861158
Firefox doesn't have safebrowsing does it?
I'm running ublock already as well, but what would be a sane method of controlling flash and JS? Block everything and selectively whitelist certain sites, or what?

>>55861599
It does, search for "browser.safebrowsing.enabled" in about:config. For some reason setting it to false will not actually disable it, you need to add a few lines to your user.js.
> Block everything and selectively whitelist certain sites, or what?
This.

Add this to your user.js (should be in the same folder as prefs.js in your Firefox profile folder), restart Firefox, close Firefox, delete "cookies.sqlite" from your profile folder and start Firefox again. This will disable Safebrowsing, remove Safebrowsing URLs from URL Classifier and also delete the Google PREF cookie (along with all other cookies) which is created during requests to Safebrowsing.
http://pastebin.com/YPMZ3vii

>>55861599
I forgot to mention: this .js will also disable Firefox's inbuilt tracking protection (privacy.trackingprotection.enabled) (which does the exact same thing as the basic tracking list by Disconnect which you can enable in uBlock Origin)

It'll also disable the tracking method called "ping" (browser.send_pings and beacon.enabled) which is used to tell websites that you closed the tab.

>>55861683
>>55861716
Thanks based anon. What would be the best way to block flash and JS, while retaining easy whitelist ability?

>>55861786
NoScript for JS. I have Flash disabled, most websites don't need it anyways. There are plenty of addons that add a button to toggle Flash if you need that.

>>55861841
Thanks

Would it be worth setting something up to randomize browser identifiers each time it opens/closes?

I'd just like you all to know that Fx is the proper acronym for Firefox.

>>55861911
Some trackers can tell that you're faking your browser user-agent (and what is your real browser), and that makes your fingerprint more unique. You can change it to the latest Firefox ESR, but most of the time it's better to leave it default.
>>55861953
And FF too.

>>55861968
>And FF too.
No, just Fx or fx.
http://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-US/firefox/releases/1.5.html#FAQ
>Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".

>>55861990
Okay, fair point.

>>55861990
But fx is the acronym for forex or foreign exchange. I don't like this doubling up of acronyms at all.

>>55862009
FF can also be interpreted as plenty of things that aren't Firefox.

File: screengrab.png (7KB, 746x541px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 746x541px

>>55860960
I use a uMatrix-based white list to control which sites can and can't set cookies

>>55861953
>proper acronym
Sure, if by “proper” you mean “nobody will understand you”. I read ‘fx’ as ‘effects’, as in ‘sfx’ (special effects).

I read ‘FF’ as ‘firefox’ because (spoiler alert!) that's what everybody on the internet has been calling it for years.

If you want to be understood by people: call it “FF”
If you want to sniff your own farts with your head up your arse: call it “Fx”