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

New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

dataprotectioncontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 269 posts

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#151

Post by nickpp »

hnarn wrote: post #139
nickpp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are "functional cookies"? Are analytics/telemetries cookies functional? Are cookies identifying google users so they can receive targeted content but also ads "functional"? GDPR never bothered to specify. This is why GDPR is broken and sadly it broke the web.

Have you tried finding the answer to your question online? There are clear examples of what "functional cookies" mean, even straight from the EU.

There are many opinions online, but there is no authoritative, definitive answer. GDPR was made vague by design "to prevent future exploits". Even lawyers are arguing the details, three years after its introduction.

This made GDPR in effect one of the most expensive regulations we had to implement as IT companies. It is also so incredibly punitive that everybody choose to implement it in the most conservative way possible, at the expense of the UX. Thus the cookie popups and banners.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#152

Post by ezoe »

mgkimsal wrote: post #101

in the 90s, we had a 'big cookie' scare. and laws were threatened (or passed?). And... MUCH of this came down to ... managing cookies (or other browser state) was (and is) largely so damn hidden behind layers of configs, menus and options. We have a home button. We have forward and back. We have 'bookmark' buttons, which many people understand. A big 'COOKIE' button, on the main browser UI, that clearly show cookie i…

The problem is, most people don't understand what cookie really is. If it's understood, you don't need to support so much clueless people and no sane politician in EU would made a cookie law.

The button you suggests cause more harm than good. Because people don't understand the cookie and think "is this button delete unnecessary data from my computer? Why not" and click it. Now all the legitimate data that were saved on their local storage is gone and they complains.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#153

Post by M2Ys4U »

belorn wrote: post #22
worldsayshi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless regulators force companies to respect automated protocols.

The GDPR already explicitly forbids 95% of the cookie banners out there, but large companies decided to ignore it and simply face the fines if they in some hypothetical future will arrive. The rest of the industry followed. Until the law that defined informed consent actually get enforced, a new law can not really fix it unless the regulators start to add the threat of jail time to repeat offenders.

Noyb - one of the organisations behind this proposal - have started contacting the operators of non-compliant websites,[0] as the first step in forcing them towards compliance.

If they change their ways then good, if not Noyb has a much more solid case when making a complaint to the SAs and/or the courts.

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-is...

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#154

Post by 411111111111111 »

leokennis wrote: post #103
pornel wrote: post #7

Reminder that we've already had a spec for it. In the 90s! And it even has been implemented in the Internet Explorer: https://www.w3.org/P3P/ It did absolutely nothing for privacy. Google has been sending bogus P3P headers that broke IE's implementation and allowed all cookies. Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unle…

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

Just a small reminder for people using Firefox and ublock origin: you can remove almost all cookie prompts by enabling the annoyances filters in the addon settings

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#155

Post by M2Ys4U »

quotemstr wrote: post #92
pornel wrote: post #7

Reminder that we've already had a spec for it. In the 90s! And it even has been implemented in the Internet Explorer: https://www.w3.org/P3P/ It did absolutely nothing for privacy. Google has been sending bogus P3P headers that broke IE's implementation and allowed all cookies. Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unle…

But privacy laws are pointless and should be repealed. All this noise about cookie privacy, fingerprinting, FLoC, tracking, etc. --- what are the actual harms that make these things bad? Has anyone in the real world ever experienced a concrete harm arising from interest targeting? Doubtful. The EU privacy regime imposes a heavy regulatory burden in exchange for nothing. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Further li…

Privacy is a human right, and respecting it does not, in any way whatsoever, break the internet.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#156

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

leokennis wrote: post #103
pornel wrote: post #7

Reminder that we've already had a spec for it. In the 90s! And it even has been implemented in the Internet Explorer: https://www.w3.org/P3P/ It did absolutely nothing for privacy. Google has been sending bogus P3P headers that broke IE's implementation and allowed all cookies. Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unle…

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

I agree that we should not feel shame at blocking ads. I remember when the web was new and "pop-up blockers" became a thing. Ad companies and everyone using them have long ago burned any and all good will we might have had towards them and deserve nothing but our contempt.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#157

Post by M2Ys4U »

nickpp wrote: post #151
hnarn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried finding the answer to your question online? There are clear examples of what "functional cookies" mean, even straight from the EU.

There are many opinions online, but there is no authoritative, definitive answer. GDPR was made vague by design "to prevent future exploits". Even lawyers are arguing the details, three years after its introduction. This made GDPR in effect one of the most expensive regulations we had to implement as IT companies. It is also so incredibly punitive that everybody choose to implement it in the most conservative way pos…

The GDPR doesn't even mention cookies.

It's the ePrivacy Directive that regulates them (or, more precisely, "information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber").

And the ePrivacy Directive does, in fact, define what's allowed without notifying the user:

"any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user."

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#158

Post by hnarn »

nickpp wrote: post #151
hnarn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried finding the answer to your question online? There are clear examples of what "functional cookies" mean, even straight from the EU.

There are many opinions online, but there is no authoritative, definitive answer. GDPR was made vague by design "to prevent future exploits". Even lawyers are arguing the details, three years after its introduction. This made GDPR in effect one of the most expensive regulations we had to implement as IT companies. It is also so incredibly punitive that everybody choose to implement it in the most conservative way pos…

Instead of ranting and providing nothing but conjecture about how "expensive" GDPR is (whatever that means), or insinuating that lawyers "arguing" about something proves that legislation is ineffective (that's literally their job), refer to first hand sources and ask constructive questions in good faith about what you don't understand. Here's one example: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

Both first party session cookies and "shopping cart" cookies are mentioned as explicit examples of cookies that do not require prior consent and are unlikely to cause any concern.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#159

Post by SahAssar »

deepstack wrote: post #9

Instead of blocking cookies, work on more stuff that will block finger printing such as stuff that is mentioned in https://www.nothingprivate.ml One spec could be split up the JS api into stuff that manipulate the dom and stuff that access GPU and other hardwares that may identify the browser or machine. Safari seems to be the only one that is doing anything in that area.

That site loads third party JS from cloudflare and sentry. Seems like the privacy message would be clearer if they didn't.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#160

Post by hoppla »

leokennis wrote: post #103
pornel wrote: post #7

Reminder that we've already had a spec for it. In the 90s! And it even has been implemented in the Internet Explorer: https://www.w3.org/P3P/ It did absolutely nothing for privacy. Google has been sending bogus P3P headers that broke IE's implementation and allowed all cookies. Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unle…

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

You might show me ads, but not track me, privacy badger stops you from doing that. But if your ads are trying to track me, then privacy badger stops that too.
Post reply on HN