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

121–130 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#121

Post by monkpit »

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.

Spoken like someone who has never used parental controls. They’re a shitshow.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#122

Post by dijit »

alt227 wrote: post #56
dijit wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"is this device for you, or a child" is one of the first options when setting up an iphone. I haven't set up an Android in a while, but, I doubt it's massively different.

Yeah but most parents devices are for them, they just let their kid use it too.

Ah, I guess it's impossible to have a quick enable kids mode then.

We should just give up and give random individuals access to everyone's camera roll.. no other way.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#123

Post by Retr0id »

I think this would be a net benefit, but I can see an issue. A lot of news sites today do "accept tracking, or pay us, or you can't access the page". The orgs doing this are reputable-ish so I assume it's considered legal, on some level at least.

So now they'd have a new popup that says "reconfigure your browser to accept tracking, or pay us, or you can't access the page". Which isn't really an improvement.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#125

Post by otterley »

inigyou wrote: post #117
monkpit wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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

The point is still correct. People often disagree on what is good and what is bad. It’s a judgement, not an indisputable fact.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#126

Post by igregoryca »

inigyou wrote: post #93
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

Sloppy, non-privacy-preserving "analytics" set up by some communications intern ≠ malice. They can mean well and still do a poor job. True privacy on the internet is notoriously hard.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#127

Post by reddalo »

hollowturtle wrote: post #116

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

That's what I'm doing with a service I made. But I don't have any ads, and ad-supported websites can't easily do that.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#128

Post by deaton »

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…

But "its specifically engineered to ensure that nobody reads it" is a real argument

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#129

Post by tempestn »

hollowturtle wrote: post #116

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

You can't even save user preferences (like language or other settings) without showing a cookie banner. Edit: I was mistaken. You can't save inferred preferences, but can save explicit user-saved options.

And for a serious website, front end analytics are kind of a necessity to understand how users interact with pages and improve the experience. Note that it certainly doesn't require tracking the behaviour of individual users, just understanding how controls are used in aggregate.

I know it seems like you could work around this with careful design and maybe focus groups and such, but I can tell you we regularly uncover surprising insights from (aggregate) trends in front-end events.

Post reply on HN