Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 509 posts

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#441

Post by vsl »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #344
UncleEntity wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then EU will essentially become free of tracking networks. It might take a few years, but I think the intermediate annoyance is worth it. I don't disagree with you but I think it is more likely that these companies will just not let EU peoples use their sites at all. One BIG fine (and you know they're salivating at the prospect of getting multi-billions out of Google and/or FB) and doing business in the EU becomes…

Some will choose to adjust practices, others might choose to block the EU. If they're happy to lose that many users, as they think tracking is more important, would that be so terrible? It might even encourage some more ethical alternatives, or some real attempts to solve micropayments.

I already encounter EU blocked sites almost daily. It would get much worse.

And yes, I do consider it terrible that my nanny state government decided what is best for me, over some hysterical fears about tracking. I don’t give a damn. I don’t consider tracking of me in the way the browser can do actual personal information.

I’m OK with a strict regime for actual personal information, like name+address, heck, even spam data like phone and email, but extending that to tracking cookies, at the enormous cost in usability we’re already seeing, is ridiculous.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#442

Post by vsl »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #384
UncleEntity wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then EU will essentially become free of tracking networks. It might take a few years, but I think the intermediate annoyance is worth it. I don't disagree with you but I think it is more likely that these companies will just not let EU peoples use their sites at all. One BIG fine (and you know they're salivating at the prospect of getting multi-billions out of Google and/or FB) and doing business in the EU becomes…

I hope they do pull out of the EU. That would be one of the biggest business opportunities in history for privacy-respecting companies to fill the void that was left.

You’re be the first in line (if you even are in the EU) to bitch about loosing all that free content you can access now.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#443

Post by vsl »

wsy wrote: post #313
nihonde wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been hearing this since 1997 when the first Data Protection directive happened. The enforcement never happens unless it’s serving a political goal, such as singling out a Chinese company or whatever.

GDPR is the result of many lessons learned in prior attempts. The EU Commission put particular attention on not repeating the mistakes being made in the Cookies directive, which rendered it essentially useless and only annoying. Fines are to be handed out by the national data protection agencies. In Germany, the data protection agency regularly goes after violators since the 1990s. They audit German administrations a…

It’s rather obvious it learned nothing. After seeing cookies banners, it was entirely evident and predictable that GDPR will result in more aggressive banners.

Which it, surprising no one competent, did.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#444

Post by samat »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #219
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...

Hmm, there are features that one literally can't provide without state (cookies). I think the real problem here is that the technical feature of cookies providing browser state is a poor proxy for what EU/DPA _really_ wants to regulate, which is privacy-related tracking. There are tons of sites I've written which use cookies, but have no ads and perform no user-tracking whatsoever, not even Google Analytics. It is tr…

If only we had a browser API which would identify user preference on tracking!

Oh wait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#445

Post by kd5bjo »

gnud wrote: post #297
joemi wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So a cookie such as "gdpr_response=ok" has ZERO effect on GDPR compliance. I wouldn't be so certain about that. Before now, most people were pretty certain that an accept/decline warning was enough and that they had the right to refuse service to people who did not click OK on the warning.

If anyone believed that, they did not research more than 10 minutes. This comes up in _every_ discussion about GDPR. I honestly worry - are we as developers just extra stupid, or are other occupations (electricians, ship captains, architects) equally lax when it comes to reading and following regulations?

Those other occupations have been regulated for a long time, so the training and verification practices have had time to mature. This is still the early days of software development regulation, so there's not much history or tradition to fall back on -- I'm pretty sure that all the other industries had similar problems when their first regulations were enacted.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#446

Post by white-flame »

strken wrote: post #435
white-flame wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery and child labor were also just "part of the business model". Some business models are predatory societal negatives and should be done away with at a government level of respecting individual rights. Behind-the-scenes tracking and data brokering are in that class.

Slavery and child labour are coercive. Not letting you use a website is only coercive if that website is Facebook or Google or some other monopoly core to a person's ability to function in modern society. If you can't access Bob's Bargain Basement Underwear then you've got plenty of competitors to go to.

It has nothing to do with being coercive, or any such specific facet of any implementation of rights violation. It's about being a rights violation, full stop.

Regarding options, in the current model it is generally unknown to the user what is happening with their seemingly private, personal, and "lock icon" encrypted activities on a site. While some here might consider it a "fair exchange" to give up PII in exchange for website services, the vast majority do not understand or even perceive that, and it is not an informed exchange at all. It violates the user, both in the nature of the exchange and in the privacy implications. It is a type of interaction that should rightly be barred in the absence of understanding and explicit, intentional consent.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#447

Post by dmortin »

white-flame wrote: post #425
dmortin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. Targeted ads pay much more. Eliminating targeted ads can result in a revenue drop of 50% or more, effectively killing small sites which most of the time make not much more money from ads than what is needed for financing themselves.

The idea that a site should automatically generate revenue simply for existing, especially when it's relying on unwitting invasion of visitors' privacy in an increasingly illegal manner, is ridiculous at best; malicious and predatory at worst.

The site generates revenue by providing a service. That's why people visit it and that generates the revenue via ads. E.g. an independent news site provides news articles and people visit it.

People won't pay for many small sites separately, so until we have a viable alternative (e.g. automatic micropayments) eliminating targeted ads would effectively eliminate independent journalism as well (regular ads pay much less) and we'll only have sites financed by big corporations pushing their agendas.

I'm not a fan of targeted ads, but I rather have them if they allow independent publishers to operate, than having only new sites financed by big money.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#448

Post by dmitriid »

samat wrote: post #444
jrochkind1 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, there are features that one literally can't provide without state (cookies). I think the real problem here is that the technical feature of cookies providing browser state is a poor proxy for what EU/DPA _really_ wants to regulate, which is privacy-related tracking. There are tons of sites I've written which use cookies, but have no ads and perform no user-tracking whatsoever, not even Google Analytics. It is tr…

If only we had a browser API which would identify user preference on tracking! Oh wait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Oh wait. It's now used for fingerprinting and tracking, and Safari is removing it: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari_release_not...

--- quote ---

Removed support for the expired Do Not Track standard to prevent potential use as a fingerprinting variable.

--- end quote ---

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#449

Post by IshKebab »

danielfoster wrote: post #302
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...

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…

That's a really naive view. I take it you would support segregation in shops etc. "It's their shop. If blacks don't like it they can visit a different shop".

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#450

Post by Dylan16807 »

yellowapple wrote: post #439
Dylan16807 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are intertwined, but the morals of buying are a lot clearer. So what's your answer?

My answer is that if it can be sold, then it must be able to be bought. My right to sell my existence is meaningless without the right for others to buy it. Amy attempt to assert otherwise - i.e. to try to sell something which nobody is allowed to buy - would be entrapment and - IMO - immoral. Either ban both sides or allow both sides; in this case, I'd vote the latter.

Let me try putting the question a different way. Suppose there is a way that society as a whole can make some of these purchases, designed to be as fair and moral as humanly possible. Now it's possible to have individual personal sellers without needing individual personal buyers.

Now you can answer this question by itself:

Is it moral to let a multi-billionaire buy someone's life?

Post reply on HN