Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop • Hacker News Board

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#331

Post by wsy » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #265

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you allowed to sell your kidney in the US? (No, you aren't.) This means that a site operator can't offer you access to a super awesome news site in exchange for your kidney. They can't get away by saying "but you can choose not to use the site". Well, Europe does the same thing for your personal data.

Trading a kidney for access to a news site would obviously be insane, and we should have laws to prevent insane people from harming themselves. On the other hand, if a person of sound mind decided they would rather have $1,000,000 than both of their kidneys, why shouldn't they be able to sell one, logically? The idea of selling one's organs sets off the human involuntary disgust/outrage reaction ("of COURSE it should…

Yes: it protects the poor and weak.

Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that?

If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#332

Post by paxys » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #225

woah wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible to do a lot of normal web stuff without session cookies.

Define "a lot of normal web stuff". How did we ever do normal web stuff before session cookies?

We didn't

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#333

Post by Sir_Cmpwn » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

The problem isn't dumb ol' grandpa EU's folly lawmaking. The lawmaking is on point and the cookie banners are the problem - not the symptom. EU regulations are trying to eliminate privacy-invasive practices like tracking. It's not about making users aware that they're being tracked. It's about making businesses cut that shit out.

Of course, on HN I have to acknowledge that half of the users on this website get their paychecks from invading the privacy of the general public. If you fall into this category: what you're doing has always been wrong and now the law is catching up to that.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#334

Post by danielfoster » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #316

danielfoster wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the full decision but I'm always surprised at how little regard European courts have for property rights. If it's my website, I should be able to decide who has access and under what terms. Don't like cookies? No one is forcing you to visit a particular website. I also feel like tech companies could adopt an open standard for cookie acceptance preferencesin web browsers, but they're afraid to lest they…

> If it's my website, I should be able to decide to decide whether to track your users? through third parties? for advertising purposes? Why? Why do you get to decide and not the users? I'd rather you didn't! It really honestly does surprise me the amount of crap Americans are willing to swallow when it comes to advertising methods, or even just profit in general. Your whole society is rife with abuse. There's robo-c…

I'm a big fan of a lot of pro-consumer regulation in EU. For example the right to block junk mailers in Germany with a simple notice on your mailbox is amazing.

However I think websites should be able to block access to anyone they want. It doesn't seem fair to force websites to serve an audience if they do not wish to.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#335

Post by wsy » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

eclat wrote: post #310

purple_ducks wrote: post #77

(European) Most sites have a simple 'Reject All' which I definitely use all the time. Oath and it's sites are the devil incarnate when it comes to implementation and they deserve to be slapped down.

This is precisely it. It's not that the EU legislation is too restrictive, it's that it doesn't go far enough. Sites like these shouldn't be compliant, users should be prompted with a simple yes/no consent form without any dark patterns.

They are not compliant. The fining machinery is just being started, and it will take a while.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#336

Post by paulmd » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #218

paulmd wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're supposed to serve generic, non-tracking ads. Non-targeted, or whatever the terminology is. It's hilarious how everyone has just forgotten that used to be a thing. The people on this website are literally the problem, you can't even conceive of a website that doesn't track every click you make across the whole internet, and you guys are the people building the new web.

It’s not possible to do a lot of normal web stuff without session cookies.

The GDPR doesn't regard cookies that serve a bona-fide business purpose. You are free to use cookies to provide a shopping cart, or allow users to log in to an account at your store, or whatever. It's specifically tracking and advertising that is forbidden.

If the user is not getting something out of it (besides the generic "access to my website") then presumptively don't do it. GDPR is literally as easy as that.

GDPR understands full well that you need session cookies to provide a shopping cart or user account. That's why there's specific exemptions for it.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#337

Post by danra » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

DavideNL wrote: post #128

In The Netherlands the Data Protection Authority announced this month that websites are no longer allowed to block access when people click "NO" in the cookie warning; Clicking 'no' should still allow people to view the website, but without placing any tracking cookies. Source (in Dutch): https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/nieuws/websites-moe...

What is the significance of this decision? This is already explicitly stated as disallowed in GDPR. Is this just an declaration of intention to enforce the existing law?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#338

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #260

mr_toad wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close to 100% of the cookies I see in the wild are not to provide state. There’s only a handful that need them for logging in. Most sites I visit I don’t want to interact with, I just want to read.

Any site requiring a login will most likely use one.

Yes: One. Not 20-50, including cookies for ads, user tracking, and whatever else they're doing this week.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#339

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #151

RivieraKid wrote: post #143

This shows utter incompetence and detachment from reality by European legislators. Maybe it seemed like good idea in theory but the only practical significant impact is that browsing the web has become more annoying. Surely there are solutions that don't require a popup on every webpage you visit? For example enforcing no tracking by default for advertising purposes?

I installed a plugin in firefox that just autoclicks "yes" or closes (no clue which) either way it makes the web much less annoying.

uBlock Origin (and presumably other ad-blockers) lets you block arbitrary elements, including cookie dialogs.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#340

Post by School-Cotton » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

wsy wrote: post #331

School-Cotton wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trading a kidney for access to a news site would obviously be insane, and we should have laws to prevent insane people from harming themselves. On the other hand, if a person of sound mind decided they would rather have $1,000,000 than both of their kidneys, why shouldn't they be able to sell one, logically? The idea of selling one's organs sets off the human involuntary disgust/outrage reaction ("of COURSE it should…

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?