OpenHealthcare.org · A privacy philosophy

Good cookies. Zero tracking

A minimum-data model for healthcare information access

OpenHealthcare.org · Version 1.0 · October 26, 2026

Healthcare information should be available without turning the act of seeking care into a commercial signal. Our commitments are simple: no third-party tracking or behavioral profiling, and no sharing of visitor data with publishers, advertisers, or data brokers.

We seek the greatest practical privacy protection compatible with a reliable, accessible, functioning service. We call this philosophy Good cookies.

Access without surveillance

A person looking for healthcare information should be able to explore, learn, and reconsider without becoming an audience segment. The service should respond to the person’s needs while asking as little of their privacy as possible.

Privacy, in this model, is a condition of respectful access. It should be built into the service rather than delegated to a visitor through complicated settings, repeated consent decisions, or the expectation that they understand tracking technology.

What Good cookies means

No third-party tracking.

We do not permit third-party analytics, advertising pixels, cross-site identifiers, or other mechanisms intended to follow visitors or build behavioral profiles. The same prohibition applies to first-party tracking used for those purposes. Changing a technology’s name or domain does not make it acceptable.

No sharing of visitor data with publishers, advertisers, or data brokers.

We do not supply them with visitor identities, browsing histories, search activity, or audience segments. Citing a publication does not authorize sharing our visitors’ data with its publisher.

Only what serves the visitor.

Cookies and comparable technologies should be limited to the functions required to provide a reliable, accessible, secure service. Good cookies is a policy of minimum necessary processing, not a claim that the site uses zero cookies or that no data is processed when a page is delivered.

The principle of minimum necessary processing

The governing question is: What is the least information needed to provide the function a person has requested?

This reverses the incentive to collect information simply because it might become useful. Collection requires a defined purpose; retention requires a reason; disclosure requires a justification consistent with the visitor’s interests. Information collected for one function should not become a tool for unrelated tracking or profiling.

Our proposed model has five criteria:

1. Necessity. Identify the requested function and evaluate whether a less intrusive alternative can provide it.
2. Purpose limitation. Confine processing to that function. Exclude behavioral profiling, cross-site tracking, and unrelated reuse of visitor data.
3. Data minimization. Limit the information, scope, and duration to what the function requires.
4. Protective defaults. Make the privacy-preserving experience the ordinary experience, while maintaining accessibility and reliable service.
5. Accountability. Evaluate actual behavior, distinguish commitments from findings, and correct claims that evidence does not support.

These criteria are informed by the W3C’s treatment of data minimization, purpose limitation, and transparency [1]. They are presented as a proposed evaluation framework, without implying W3C endorsement or independent certification.

A safety zone for seeking care

Our aspiration is the maximum practical privacy protection consistent with a functioning service. “Maximum” describes the direction of design: remove unnecessary observation, reduce avoidable exposure, and preserve the visitor’s ability to obtain useful information.

It is not a measurable claim that every possible risk has been eliminated. A rigorous privacy model must acknowledge uncertainty and remain open to scrutiny. The ethical promise becomes meaningful when its boundaries are specific enough to test.

Your choice to follow a source

Our pages link to source publications and healthcare practices so that you can examine evidence and make informed decisions. When you choose to open another website, that destination receives your visit and applies its own privacy practices. Our commitments apply to OpenHealthcare; they are not a guarantee about independent websites.

A reference model for research

Good cookies is offered as a citable model for public-interest information services: zero tracking, no behavioral profiling, minimum necessary processing, and accountability for the claims made to visitors.

Researchers can use the five criteria to structure evaluation, compare service designs, and identify where implementation falls short of principle. Evaluation should distinguish stated policy from observed behavior and specify its methods, scope, date, and limitations. A favorable result from one page or one browser is not proof of universal compliance.

We aspire to a gold standard that earns confidence through evidence and independent scrutiny. Version 1.0 is a self-published philosophy and proposed evaluation framework, not a claim of an established gold-standard designation, peer review, or complete safety.

Suggested citation

OpenHealthcare.org. (2026, October 26). Good cookies. Zero tracking: A minimum-data model for healthcare information access (Version 1.0). https://openhealthcare.org/cookies. Accessed [date].

When citing this model, identify the version and access date and distinguish its normative commitments from any separately reported implementation findings.

Reference

1. World Wide Web Consortium. Privacy Principles. Sections 2.2 (Data Minimization), 2.10 (Purpose Limitation), and 2.11 (Transparency). https://www.w3.org/TR/privacy-principles/. Consulted October 26, 2026.

Version record

1.0 — October 26, 2026: Initial philosophy and evaluation criteria. Good cookies replaces the earlier absolute zero-cookie wording with a policy of minimum necessary processing.