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

111–120 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#111

Post by tacitusarc »

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…

But it is complicated, no? Even if you click you agree, if the you thought you were agreeing to one thing but actually agreed to another because they buried the lede, “I didn’t read it” is a reasonable defense.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#112

Post by tempestn »

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…

"I didn't read it," sure. But, "A reasonable person would not read it?"

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#113

Post by GaryBluto »

alt227 wrote: post #57
SoftTalker wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the setting should be on the device, not the browser or individual apps. One setting that you could even get pre-configured when you buy the phone.

It still doesnt solve the problem of the millions of parents that just dont care.

Why should I care that they don't?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#114

Post by openquery »

Finally yes yes yes.

I've wanted the option to select your cookie preferences once and forget in a brower for ever.

I assume the reason this wasn't done initially was corporate pressure (most people would opt-out of everything by default).

1.2 billion exposed users × 8.17 years×365×3 banners/day×4 seconds÷36 is roughly 10-15 billion human hours lost to dealing with damn cookies since GDPR took effect on May 2018.

That's about 17,000 human lives.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#115

Post by monkpit »

inigyou wrote: post #90
otterley wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if only the incentive to produce bad things is eliminated

* definition of bad is subjective and may vary depending upon which lobby group has the most cash to throw around

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#116

Post by hollowturtle »

I always wondered though why a website in the eu, for the love of their users, won't just drop cookie usage and instrusive third party scripts. Just do analytics on the backend and don't set any cookie, except for tokens in authenticated areas

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#117

Post by inigyou »

monkpit wrote: post #115
inigyou wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if only the incentive to produce bad things is eliminated

* definition of bad is subjective and may vary depending upon which lobby group has the most cash to throw around

no, I referred to actual bad things

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#118

Post by alex_suzuki »

kuerbel wrote: post #67
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.

If you use social media pixels, ad tracking, or performance analytics tools like Google Analytics a cookie banner and consent is required. If not, then not.

Side note: there’s plenty of Analytics tools that don’t require cookies. Plausible (https://plausible.io) is one of them, there are many others. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#119

Post by tempestn »

estebarb wrote: post #108
ymolodtsov wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aggregated analytics do, and you can't run a serious website without some kind of analytics. Preference-storing does as well, despite any reasonable user expecting that, if they set a preference, it will be saved.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#120

Post by basch »

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…

Cookie control always should have been a browser control. The legal route always should have been to force it to be built into browsers that provide sane defaults, and make it illegal to circumvent what the browser declares as far as fingerprinting etc.

any sort of elevation prompt, IF I allow them to be popups or an icon in a toolbar, should always be in the same place and not cover the page.

Post reply on HN