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

Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

amazingcto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 662 posts

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

#131

Post by c-flow »

bjornsing wrote: post #24

This is written from the standpoint that you want to deny consent. But I just want to give consent and get on with my day. I see it as sort of paying for the content. Honestly I think most people see it this way, even if it’s an unpopular stance in some tech circles.

I find it annoying but I do the opposite. Don't give my consent for all the optionals and prefer not to get tracked. I don't believe all of that tracking is warranted in a significant number of cases. Websites appear to be still fully functional without all of those extras, too, meaning the website providers are also ok with foregoing it.

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

#132

Post by piva00 »

arbuge wrote: post #89

"Companies could easily avoid any cookie banner. Just don’t track." It seems like a point dear to the author's heart, given the way he highlights this and puts it in bold at the top of the article. But while it sounds good on the surface, it doesn't take much digging to show it's silly. If you store any kind of data about a visitor to make their life more convenient, is that tracking? Shopping carts? Notification pre…

Shopping carts, session cookies, or any other kind of functional cookies (including the one for "do not track" saving) do not require consent, and so don't require the banner. Github for example doesn't have it.

Please, read the basics about the law before disparaging criticisms, I constantly have to educate users on HN about this misrepresentation of GDPR and Cookie Law.

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

#134

Post by isodev »

miracle2k wrote: post #81
nolok wrote: post #17

Imagine a market in which companies charge a lot of hidden fees behind their customers' back, and users are not happy when they realize after the fact. The law is updated to say you are not allowed to charge the user a fee unless you tell him in advance. Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the m…

> On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law. The reality is that I (a…

"Number of visitors" does not constitute tracking. The tracking in question here is to discover who you are specifically and the absurd amount of detail about your online activities collected and shared with data brokers for aggregation and resale.

A few of these cookie prompts during the day and they'd be able to tell everything from where your kids go to school to the kind of prn you prefer to watch on weekdays and everything in between.

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

#135

Post by master-lincoln »

thunfischtoast wrote: post #12
piker wrote: post #4

Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.

If a business cannot survive without it essentially stealing my property (read: my data), it should not survive.

This is copying, not stealing though.

But I agree, taking advantage of me telling you personal info by selling it to externals is unfair without consent

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

#136

Post by iEchoic »

crabmusket wrote: post #98
arbuge wrote: post #89

"Companies could easily avoid any cookie banner. Just don’t track." It seems like a point dear to the author's heart, given the way he highlights this and puts it in bold at the top of the article. But while it sounds good on the surface, it doesn't take much digging to show it's silly. If you store any kind of data about a visitor to make their life more convenient, is that tracking? Shopping carts? Notification pre…

Shopping carts and notification preferences don't require a consent banner.

Our lawyers told us otherwise.

Regardless of the answer here, the fact that there's still a debate about what basic functionality requires a cookie banner is really a testament to how bad this legislation is. How long has this been around, 20 years? And there's still widespread debate and lack of understanding as to what specific functionality requires a cookie banner?

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

#137

Post by paulgb »

xxs wrote: post #31
tlb wrote: 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…

I guess the confusion is about advertising and tracking - the banners are about tracking not advertising.

Advertising can be more targeted (and thus higher paying) when paired with tracking.

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

#138

Post by paulryanrogers »

miracle2k wrote: post #81
nolok wrote: post #17

Imagine a market in which companies charge a lot of hidden fees behind their customers' back, and users are not happy when they realize after the fact. The law is updated to say you are not allowed to charge the user a fee unless you tell him in advance. Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the m…

> On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law. The reality is that I (a…

Does it become less ridiculous when your browsing history is sold to insurers, who use it to raise your rates.

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

#139

Post by klabb3 »

jasode wrote: post #70

>, Paul Graham came up with the thought, that the EU forces companies to have cookie banners. There is no law for cookie banners. [...] Companies could easily avoid any cookie banner. Just don’t track. KingOfCoders/amazingcto, of course you are technically correct but Paul Graham wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Instead, you have to interpret his complaint with the lens of game theory . I.e. The Law of Uni…

I’m not surprised. This is a “hot take-centric” platform issue, and a laziness in trying to understand him too. Or.. two people on the street yelling at each other but not listening.

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

#140

Post by AlchemistCamp »

nolok wrote: post #17

Imagine a market in which companies charge a lot of hidden fees behind their customers' back, and users are not happy when they realize after the fact. The law is updated to say you are not allowed to charge the user a fee unless you tell him in advance. Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the m…

The "fee" isn't the cookie. It's the obnoxious popup.
Post reply on HN