Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop • Hacker News Board

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#481

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #450

yellowapple wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it's not moral for one person to do it, then is it moral for all people to do it collectively? The outcome is the same either way (an old man voluntarily dies and his children/grandchildren are significantly richer as a result); why would it matter who made that outcome possible?

So, then:

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

In the scenario you've now posited - i.e. one in which society is allowed to buy someone's life - it is moral for a member of said society to buy someone's life. Why would it not be?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#482

Post by dageshi » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

themacguffinman wrote: post #375

dageshi wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been proven over and over again that people won't pay for content that gets successfully monetised with advertising. You only have to see the howling every time someone posts a subscription only newspaper link on HN to see how vehemently opposed people are to paying for stuff like news.

So that means consumers have chosen to forgo their privacy to avoid paying money for content. Why can't I make that choice myself?

Why doesn't MC Donalds sell pizza? (I know they did at some point and gave it up). Because their customers don't want it, or at least not enough of them do.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#483

Post by mikeash » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #480

mikeash wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% of web developers give the rest of you a bad name.

I really wonder if it is more 90% of really visible things give a bad name. Most just do stuff nobody sees at any volume.

That’s a good point. One bad web developer at, say, Facebook cancels out millions of people working on less visible stuff.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#484

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #481

Dylan16807 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it's not moral for one person to do it, then is it moral for all people to do it collectively? The outcome is the same either way (an old man voluntarily dies and his children/grandchildren are significantly richer as a result); why would it matter who made that outcome possible? So, then: > Is it moral to let a multi-billionaire buy someone's life? In the scenario you've now posited - i.e. one in which society is…

There are lots of things it's moral for society to do but not a single person. Like run their own police for their benefit.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#485

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #484

yellowapple wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not moral for one person to do it, then is it moral for all people to do it collectively? The outcome is the same either way (an old man voluntarily dies and his children/grandchildren are significantly richer as a result); why would it matter who made that outcome possible? So, then: > Is it moral to let a multi-billionaire buy someone's life? In the scenario you've now posited - i.e. one in which society is…

There are lots of things it's moral for society to do but not a single person. Like run their own police for their benefit.

Yeah, but those things have a different outcome depending on whether it's a single individual or a society of individuals doing them (in that example: police being accountable to one person instead of the public as a whole).

This is different, since no matter what, an old man voluntarily dies for the financial benefit of his descendants. If the outcome is the same no matter who makes that happen, then I fail to see why one approach to doing so would be more or less moral than the other.

If anything, a single individual purchasing that old man's life would be more moral, since the alternative would be to compel an entire society (and specifically the members thereof) to bear that cost (both monetarily - i.e. via taxes - and the emotional cost of having killed someone). Given that the billionaire is (presumably) a member of society, the net impact is identical, but it's compartmentalized to a single individual who volunteered for those costs versus an entire society of individuals who might not have.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#486

Post by wsy » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #371

wsy wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance. Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: s…

Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that some…

The core idea is to limit the choices of the rich, not to limit the choices of the poor. You will be prosecuted if you buy a kidney, or if you kill a human, not if you sell a kidney or your life.

With respect to your interpretation of the veil of ignorance, if you knew you were going to be a beggar, why on earth would you want to design the society in such a way that selling your kidneys or life can become the best option left to you (or anybody else in that society)? And if you are able to design it in such a way that it is not the best option, then outlawing to buy such things would not impact your life as beggar negatively.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#487

Post by wsy » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #376

wsy wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't tell anything about suicide. It is about the question: should one be allowed to buy everything, or are there limits? To emphasize: NOT should one be allowed to sell everything.

But those are fundamentally intertwined. If nobody's allowed to buy something, then how is anyone expected to be allowed to sell something? A purchase and sale are not independent events.

I fully agree. But still it makes a difference from a moral analysis point of view, because my aim is to condemn the buyer, and don't judge the seller.

So now you have to convince me that buying the right to beat someone to death is a morally justifiable action. It is not sufficient for you to judge selling as justifiable to make your point. I actually agree that selling is morally justifiable, and would never vote to make this a punishable offense.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#488

Post by icedchai » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

brett40324 wrote: post #421

icedchai wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the view of a US person: These are private owned and operated web sites. The site owner determines what is "essential." If you do not agree to to the terms, do not use the site. If you don't want to be tracked for advertising, that's on you to install ad blockers.

This may be so for 'some' US based websites or companies, but those of us with users worldwide tend to find it very essential to not violate the right and privacy of our users, in accordance with their countries' laws.

I don't believe any rights or privacy is being violated. That is the difference.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#489

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

wsy wrote: post #487

yellowapple wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those are fundamentally intertwined. If nobody's allowed to buy something, then how is anyone expected to be allowed to sell something? A purchase and sale are not independent events.

I fully agree. But still it makes a difference from a moral analysis point of view, because my aim is to condemn the buyer, and don't judge the seller. So now you have to convince me that buying the right to beat someone to death is a morally justifiable action. It is not sufficient for you to judge selling as justifiable to make your point. I actually agree that selling is morally justifiable, and would never vote t…

Like I mentioned in another branch of this thread, if selling is allowed, then it would be immoral to not allow buying; punishing someone for buying something that's legal to sell would be entrapment.

In fact, doing so might even pass that immorality down to the grandfather seeking compensation for his suicide; if he's aware of the illegality of buying his life, and yet exercises his right to sell it anyway, then at best it's a meaningless gesture and at worst he's complicit in entrapping prospective buyers.

That's what I mean when I say buying and selling are intertwined. Without one, you can't have the other. If one is moral, the other must be moral as well. If one is immoral, the other must be immoral as well. Attempting to carve out an exception is inevitably going to run into all sorts of moralistic and/or logical snags.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#490

Post by asgrdz » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

J5892 wrote: post #168

smileysteve wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you remember that a customer has responded to a popup if you don't give them a cookie? Even a cookie as a session identifier.

You'll need to use fingerprinting and other much more intrusive tracking methods to track the cookie preferences of any user that refuses cookies.

Wrong on both accounts.

1. You ARE allowed to use any cookies you like without popup warnings, as long as the cookie can't be used to bind the session to personal identifiable information (PII) about the user. Session cookies are perfectly fine when used to manage webapp state, such as what page a user is on, what feature has been enabled and so on. Likewise are other identification methods, for this sort of purpose.

2. Any technical means used to make a connection to a user's PII does fall under GDPR.

Seeing the underlying intent? GDPR is about avoiding invisible tracking (connection to a european citizen). The regulation is written to bring that sort of behavior to an end. Your fingerprinting example, as well as any other "clever" technical ways of achieving the identification objective, when the purpose is that of invisible tracking; tracking where the user isn't in control of the profile information generated, is explicitly what the regulation aims to nail.

Do read the regulation document. It's actually a very well written document that even a non lawyer can understand: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

GDPR is about users gaining control of the lifecycle of information pertaining to their identity, so if you or your proxies (googl/fb or other ad companies for example) have PII about a user, then the GDPR stipulates processing constraints on that information, which includes any information that can be associated with the user. E.g. building a profile about a user that can be tied to a user's PII becomes part of the user's PII, and thus subject to the intended end-user lifecycle control. What that control means is stated clearly in the document linked above.

When the web plays its normal chinese-whispers-game on any kind of fact, it's always best to go directly to the source to see what was actually said or written. In this particular case with GDPR, this is definitely the case. Not a single of my US colleagues nor friends had even an inkling of what GDPR actually is about, and it seems most of this community is in the same boat.

I guarantee that reading the actual doc will dispel a lot of unfounded fears.

If you happen to have even the slightest layman interest in law, or appreciate games / brain teasers, then you might actually be a bit impressed by the cleverness of the wording in parts of the document, and how it all comes together. Myself, having been in the dev field for 20 years, I've read my fair share of EULAs, licenses and contracts, and to me I saw some true genius shine through half way through the document, like watching a good chess player setup a board and guard against obvious attacks by the opponent. I felt I could almost see into the minds of the authors; what they sought to accomplish, loopholes they tried to close, and an attempt at creating a defensive shield that would be as "future proof" as they could make it, against new unknowns introduced by rapid technical innovation.