Live data from Hacker News

Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

amazingcto.com

51–60 of 662 posts

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#51
Hate this way of thinking where the government (with seemingly good intentions) tries to stop something but leaves a loophole where all our lives are made more tedious and then people defend it saying the companies should just not do it, well we needed the law in the first place so it's a bit silly thinking to suggest they stop doing it after the law, no?.

If the cookie law was written properly then it would have just been a browser setting that had to be respected and this whole thing would have been completely transparent to the end user and they would have benefitted by default.

Instead through incompetent government employees we now have cookie banners for the rest of eternity on almost every site and they're not even standardized so worst sites like where journalists publish can have more and more obtuse ones.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, completely foreseeable.

Yeah, I’m not sure legislators should be on the hook for malicious compliance, though.

Of course not, I was just having a laff at tech's expense.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#53
The deliberate, bad faith misunderstandings of the tracking consent and GDPR stuff on here reminds me every time exactly how many people are apparently content to work for and shill for adtech.

Working for Lockheed Martin or RTX is a more moral choice than working in adtech IMO.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#54
post #21

Part of what it means to be "good at regulation" is to anticipate the likely consequences of regulations. So a regulation that says that "businesses must now give away their products for free, unless they honk each customer's nose" will result in a lot of sore noses. Which is basically the case here. Almost all websites make money through ads, or at least keep logs of user activity to help them optimize their website…

A site can keep logs of user activity to help optimize without tracking my personal data. As soon as a company needs to track me, it's doing more than "optimizing its website"—it's using my data to sell me stuff or selling my data to third parties. And I'm glad it needs permission to do those things.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#55

To me, this seems like engagement clickbait targeting PG to promote an infotainment product (CTO coaching/course): >there is no cookie banner law There definitely is. The article explicitly states this: >you need my consent when you want to track me "tracking" here means storing data: >store information in a visitor's browser is only allowed if the user is provided with "clear and comprehensive information", in accor…

>"tracking" here means storing data:

Yes, without any consent. For instance logging in a site, doesn't require the warning.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#56
post #21

Part of what it means to be "good at regulation" is to anticipate the likely consequences of regulations. So a regulation that says that "businesses must now give away their products for free, unless they honk each customer's nose" will result in a lot of sore noses. Which is basically the case here. Almost all websites make money through ads, or at least keep logs of user activity to help them optimize their website…

Showing adverts is not what requires them to ask permission.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#57
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also shows that most people don't care and just want to get on with their day. We know that companies are collecting more data. Now what?

How does it show that? Most people I know are annoyed by this and click on "reject" (if they can find it), but for a lot of non-technical people these banners are just a given because they don't even understand the problem. Doesn't mean they don't care

> if they can find it

If it even exists!

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#58
post #50
post #27

Putting up a wall in the middle of a busy street and then getting upset when people find ways around it doesn't make sense. The solution is either to remove the wall or ensure it cannot be bypassed. Right now, it's just irritating for the average person and slightly inconveniencing those who actually break the rules. This is the same situation with the cookie banner regulations. If the goal is to eliminate tracking,…

Since this is around the 5th time this sentiment has been expressed in this thread, I have to ask... are cookie banners really so frustrating? Oh no, gotta click one, maybe 2, more buttons...

2 more buttons x the number of websites you visit a day x the number of time the website forgets your choice? Yes, they are quite annoying.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#59

The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.

I guess PG's original tweet assumes that cookie banners are a) bad, b) the fault of the EU, and C) unanticipated and unintended by the EU, thereby demonstrating their incompetence.

I can't really comment on what the lawmakers foresaw or intended, but I'd argue that cookie banners are actually a) good, and b) the fault of companies who can't imagine a better way to treat their users.

The reason I think they're good is that they cause a psychological nuisance to users of software which doesn't go out of their way to do them well or avoid their necessity. Over time I hope this will tend to cause an association in users minds that sites with cookie banners are somehow seedy or unscrupulous, like pop-up ads.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#60

Yes there is. More specifically, it’s the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC, which each member state adjusts their own laws to follow. It’s published here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... The relevant part: > Article 5 > Confidentiality of the communications > 3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information…

The article makes that point. There is no law to put a giant banner that disturbs UX in your users face. Companies choose to do so. There only is a law that prevents companies from tracking you without consent.
Post reply on HN