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

91–100 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#91

Post by inigyou »

mike_hock wrote: post #37
Phemist wrote: post #22

> 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…

Don't fall for the "we are just stupid" propaganda, which is used constantly by governments acting in bad faith. Browsers already had settings for deleting cookies. There was never a reason for banners whose only function was pulling the ladder up from smaller competitors and concentrating power in the hands of an oligopoly that could siphon data directly from the OS. This coupled with a law mandating ISPs provide a…

I think it's because every single website breaks if you don't allow cookies at the browser level. Some knowledge of what the specific cookie does was necessary.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#92

Post by inigyou »

echelon wrote: post #45
Phemist wrote: post #22

> 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…

>>>>>>> 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... THIS Holy shit. This is such an obvious fix. And it shuts up those surveillance state goons immediately. My God, why have we tried to summon up the ghost of 1984 when such a simple fix as this will do. Parents can lock devices into "child mode" that emits "user…

California AB1043, in other words

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#93

Post by inigyou »

tezza wrote: post #12

Even well meaning bodies like TFL (Transport for London) have cookie warnings that impede the actual access of the website. Need to look up a bus time? Full screen cookie consent with accept buttons drawn OFF THE SCREEN.

They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#94

Post by shagie »

> 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. Unfortunately, the tracking industry is pushing back – and so far, they’ve been successful.

> ...

> You may think that EU privacy law requires cookie banners. But the law is clear: online tracking is prohibited by default.

That's an excellent idea... lets see how its implemented on https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en

Oh... there's a cookie banner.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#95

Post by inigyou »

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?

Sometimes I do it to reward the website for being less shit than most websites.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#96

Post by znnajdla »

otterley wrote: post #76
chrismorgan wrote: post #60

The other approach to killing the cookie banner is simply to declare that such a thing cannot constitute “informed consent”. (Perhaps: “ticking a checkbox and/or clicking a button cannot constitute informed consent”; and see what they try next.) From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them…

> From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way There’s no way this would fly. “I didn’t read it” can’t possibly be an excuse to avoid being bound by an agreement. Every party to an agreement that flaunted its terms, even though they took advantage of the benefits granted by…

> “I didn’t read it” can’t possibly be an excuse to avoid being bound by an agreement

Only engineers have trouble understanding this. It can be a reasonable defense, and it has successfully been used in courts of law many times. The law is not a machine that compiles text like code literally. Imagine someone who coerces a dying or sick person to sign an agreement they couldn’t possibly be in a reasonable state of mind to understand what they were doing -- the law can and does invalidate such “contracts”. That is the same principle behind age of consent laws. The law could theorerically (and does) invalidate “agreements” which no one is reasonably expected to read and understand.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#98

Post by inigyou »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #26
convolvatron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bro…

That's been ruled illegal in the EU, but EU sites still do it. Basically, the consent exception only applies if the user isn't coerced into it. Because coerced consent isn't consent.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#99

Post by otterley »

znnajdla wrote: post #96
otterley wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way There’s no way this would fly. “I didn’t read it” can’t possibly be an excuse to avoid being bound by an agreement. Every party to an agreement that flaunted its terms, even though they took advantage of the benefits granted by…

> “I didn’t read it” can’t possibly be an excuse to avoid being bound by an agreement Only engineers have trouble understanding this. It can be a reasonable defense, and it has successfully been used in courts of law many times. The law is not a machine that compiles text like code literally. Imagine someone who coerces a dying or sick person to sign an agreement they couldn’t possibly be in a reasonable state of min…

I am an attorney, and am aware of certain exceptions. But these are exceptions and not the general rule, which is what I am speaking of.

> The law could theorerically (and does) invalidate “agreements” which no one is reasonably expected to read and understand.

I haven’t heard of a single case where an agreement was voided because “no one could reasonably be expected to understand it.” Unless the language was so impenetrable or vague that the agreement itself could not be discerned. Lawyers tend not to write such agreements.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#100

Post by inigyou »

reorder9695 wrote: post #48
alt227 wrote: post #34

I still don't get why every website has a cookie banner by default. I am data controller for several companies and have lots of exposure to GDPR. All my websites have no cookie banner, as they are not required. I guess that most companies just chuck it up there as a default so they dont have to read the law, or maybe they are all actually harvesting and selling personal data and therefore require cookies? Who knows.

Don't underestimate the argument of "just to be on the safe side". Someone running a business who doesn't know a lot about cookies will often just put a banner on as an easy arse covering mechanism even when not required.

Let businesses who don't know what they're doing be outcompeted by businesses who know what they're doing.
Post reply on HN