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

Kill The Cookie Banner

killthecookiebanner.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#21

Post by PaulRobinson »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #14

The EU has been on a decade-long crusade to destroy the internet.

I think you'll find that's Google and Meta.

Just step back and ask yourself what each side of that debate is trying to achieve and why. What is motivating them? Why are they motivated in that way?

Don't just recite what you "know", think, look, research, figure it out. It might sound good to have a one-liner like this in your back pocket, but do you really believe it after looking at the publicly available information that it is their real intention to conduct a "crusade to destroy the internet"?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#22

Post by Phemist »

> Tired of misleading cookie banners? The EU Commission has finally proposed a solution: set your privacy preferences in the browser once, and never see another banner.

So lawmakers do know how to make legally binding preferences based on device settings? What a crazy innovation.. now if only parents were given these options to indicate their child is using a device.. we could do away with all this Online Safety Act nonsense...

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#25

Post by tcfhgj »

hborscht wrote: post #16
the__alchemist wrote: post #11

Keep fighting! For now: browser plugins.

is there a specific one you would recommend?

uBlock Origin -> allows blocking dialogs (legally implies refusal of everything not necessary, because you don't agree to something requiring agreement)

Consent-O-Matic -> automated configuration to your preferences using the dialog provided.

I still don't care about cookies -> least privacy friendliest option, because it may opt into undesired tracking (its goal is just to remove the annoyance of the dialogs)

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#26

Post by PaulRobinson »

convolvatron wrote: post #20
tysilva wrote: post #18

Wow, finally. This would be a major quality of life update for browsing the web. As others have stated, not all sites merit the same preferences. Hopefully they can adapt a middleground of default settings with the ability to customize site by site.

under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?

Devil's advocate argument: if they were giving you something in return, and that could be cash, but it might also be "you can have this content for free".

In the UK a few news sites have changed cookie banners to "you can accept and see this stuff for free, or you can sign up for a subscription, which would you prefer?". It's the only time I hit accept (and then clear browser history).

If blanket preferences from browser signals became the norm, a segment might open up where you would configure preferences and a data broker would make sure you get something in return for your data. At minimum it might force paywalled publishers to consider that as a "lite" subscription option.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#27

Post by tcfhgj »

qurren wrote: post #6
paulddraper wrote: post #2

Doesn't this lead to an all-or-nothing approach? I don't want randomnewssite to track me. But a favorite online store...I do want help with recommendations.

Just disable cookies on your browser by default, and enable it for the sites that you need to log in to. Ironically, this has the effect of cookie banners reappearing every time because they cannot place a cookie that says that you have rejected them.

you can be tracked without cookies - the cookie dialogs are about tracking and processing of personal data in general.

-> not really sensible

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#28

Post by Phemist »

qurren wrote: post #6
paulddraper wrote: post #2

Doesn't this lead to an all-or-nothing approach? I don't want randomnewssite to track me. But a favorite online store...I do want help with recommendations.

Just disable cookies on your browser by default, and enable it for the sites that you need to log in to. Ironically, this has the effect of cookie banners reappearing every time because they cannot place a cookie that says that you have rejected them.

Malicious compliance. You do not need a cookie to "store" the fact you have rejected them. They can simply assume you have rejected them from the lack of cookies. They can store a cookie once you (have gone out of your way to) accept them.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#30

Post by sandeepkd »

Usually government mandating something is concerning cause it seems to favor the government for its existence. However with EU commission its actually interesting combination, its representing multiple individual governments at once which somehow works good for the citizens.

Overall this is a common sense solution. The challenge is that a significant industry makes money by collecting and selling data. It makes it harder for businesses who depend on it, they are going to get creative and will eventually come up with some dark pattern to circumvent it.

Post reply on HN