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

101–110 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#101

Post by dijit »

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…

I agree, and I agree with the enthusiasm on which you bring in.

I've long since considered that the efforts for online child safety should be pointed at educating parents and spearheading some kind of certification of compliance for child safety of software and websites.

[this product is certified to adhere to EU:CSA]

Then you can block everything not certified, and the software that does the blocking would also be certified, the two major prongs you need (endpoints and sites working together: else they're blocked). The rest of the money goes to education for parents about this fact, and the dangers of not doing it, and how to do it.

This is super "easy" (when comparing to the effort it would take for putting backdoors in everything).

Which is why I think that the reason is definitely not child safety, and more about crime control.

Me talking about UK blocking people unless they ID themselves in 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979295

Me talking about how its disingenuous because we have superior technical solutions to this particular issue last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010902

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#102

Post by inigyou »

tete wrote: post #64

No, please don't! It's great. The current law forces people that don't give a shit about user privacy to have a banner (or any other way of asking for consent first) while giving everyone that cares and everyone not wanting to spy on their visitor a free pass.

People click yes too often because it's the easier way to make it go away. This new thing could actually result in a 0% tracking cookie consent rate, effectively making them illegal.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#103

Post by Avicebron »

otterley wrote: post #88
Avicebron wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a balance that needs to be carefully managed here. Yes, fairness to consumers is important. But you can’t destroy the incentive to produce value in so doing. The value is derived from the people consuming the product. Placing the "incentive to produce value" above the people who presumably are the source of this value seems...misaligned.

If there’s no product or service to be consumed, there’s no value produced either. That’s the point: it’s harmful to eliminate the incentive to produce.

People will _always_ need things. There are very few things that will eliminate people's need for things and producers will of course adapt to the environment.

What we need is an environment that does not give the producers asymmetric power over consumers and the products will naturally align with that.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#105

Post by rusk »

dspillett wrote: post #86

> automated signals that would communicate your privacy preferences between your device and websites or apps 0 Sounds good, as long as it covers the "legitimate interest" bollocks⁰ that is often hidden in inconvenient UI nests as well as the basic preference. ------- [0] "we see your preference not to be stalked, but we want to anyway, click again for every partner to reconfirm you don't want them following you aroun…

This was tried before but was presumably scuppered by the market intelligence and surveillance communities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#106

Post by ymolodtsov »

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…

Websites need cookies. I don't get why I have to suffer through this for a few puritans who literally lose nothing in the process of this transaction but act as if Stasi is watching them.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#107

Post by [deleted] »

alt227 wrote: post #49
conception wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true. Every TV app has a parent setting. That’s really easy to use browser support profiles just like TV apps do bad. UX doesn’t mean that it can’t be set up easily for parents. Windows itself could have profiles for kids that has all this set automatically. It’s not hard. There’s just no will to do it.

> There’s just no will to do it. Exactly. The problem is its from the parents side.

[deleted]

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#108

Post by estebarb »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #106
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…

Websites need cookies. I don't get why I have to suffer through this for a few puritans who literally lose nothing in the process of this transaction but act as if Stasi is watching them.

Session cookies do not require a banner.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#110

Post by IsTom »

otterley wrote: post #99
znnajdla wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 impe…

EULAs are restricted in power in EU and at least to me these cookie banners are similar in spirit.
Post reply on HN