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

Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

#21

Post by lkbm »

ajnin wrote: post #18
lkbm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I'm certainly not an expert on the law -- I did some quick googling, but not a lot. Session cookies, e.g. are fine. As best I can tell, "remember me" / "remember my email" checkboxes still do require a banner, though I'm not sure. Preference cookies in general seem to. That strikes me as silly. Facebook's tracking me on thousands of unrelated websites; Wikipedia is remembering that I X'd out the donation…

The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.

Thanks for clarifying. You may be right -- again, I'm far from an expert. The distinction I've seen is essential vs. nonessential. Remembering that I dismissed that banner seems more like non-essential to me. Seems more along the lines of saving my preferred font size. That said, the sources I'm finding about this are maaaybe not the most reliable.

Is there a difference between remembering this "for the current session" vs. "for several weeks"? (The idea of a session is awfully vague given how HTTP works, but seems like one we use anyway.)

> I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.

One thing I can add is that when I searched for info about the law, I got a bunch of results from cookieyes.com, which told me 1. that I need a cookie banner for any cookies at all and 2. we'll provide you with a cookie banner if you pay us.

So there's definitely some incentives to push unnecessary cookie banners going on. :-)

Re: Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

#26

Post by burke »

wlll wrote: post #3
knorker wrote: post #2

I find it hard to care about violations of the worst law that ever happened to the internet.

Care to elaborate on that? I rather like it. As a developer it's a pain, but as a citizen I find it to be a step in the right direction.

In my opinion, it’s solving the problem at the wrong level. If you, as a government, want to coerce someone into solving this problem, it should be forcing browser vendors to provide more visibility into and control over (especially third-party) cookies.

Instead, we have a banner you have to interact with as the price to visit pretty much any website.

Re: Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

#27

Post by pavelevst »

rblatz wrote: post #25

Who cares? Those damn consent banners are ruining the web.

Completely agree. So annoying especially when it take half of mobile device screen

I think with tracking protection in modern browsers it should be absolutely fine to allow websites to store data in any possible way (cookies, local storage, websql etc)

Re: Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

#28

Post by ffpip »

yladiz wrote: post #8
ffpip wrote: post #5

1. Block 3rd party cookies (useless on 99.99% of the sites) 2. Install uBlock Origin ( https://www.ublockorigin.com )

Don't forget step 0: 0. Don't illegally put nonessential cookies in the browser without the user's consent.

Yeah. I can see every website following step 0 because yladiz said so. Good way enforcing that with random websites.

Take your privacy into your own hands, why leave it to others to implement. Many won't

Re: Slack stores browser cookies without user consent

#29

Post by rafram »

burke wrote: post #26
wlll wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate on that? I rather like it. As a developer it's a pain, but as a citizen I find it to be a step in the right direction.

In my opinion, it’s solving the problem at the wrong level. If you, as a government, want to coerce someone into solving this problem, it should be forcing browser vendors to provide more visibility into and control over (especially third-party) cookies. Instead, we have a banner you have to interact with as the price to visit pretty much any website.

I don’t know, I think the banner is a pain but it is absolutely the responsibility of web developers to allow user choice in tracking. Cookies don’t have to be third-party to be harmful.

If the roads are bad, we need to fix the roads, not just tell everyone to drive better cars.

Post reply on HN