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

141–150 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#141

Post by ezoe »

It's technically stupid in the first place.

It's YOUR browser, a locally running software on a physical computer YOU own which memorize the cookie key-value pair a remote host told YOU to memorize and YOU return the same value later. It's YOU who allowed the cookie. If YOU don't want to allow the cookie, YOU simply not allow it.

You are technically 100% control on cookie. These JavaScript implemented in-page UI has no guarantee to respect your wish. But you have a power to disable it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#142

Post by cube00 »

troupo wrote: post #7

> he EU Commission finally proposed a solution to the cookie banner problem: automated signals that would communicate your privacy preferences between your device and websites or apps. It wasn't on EU Commission to "finally propose a solution". The soluton has always been there. Somehow, Google, aka world's largest tracking and advertising company incidentally making the worlds' dominant browser and completely domina…

> Somehow, [...] couldn't be bothered

Google knows if you can set this once it's game over for their adverting business. At least with the cookie banners, there's a possibly you won't refuse every banner.

Especially those banners that only have "Accept" or "More options" with all those checkboxes to clear.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#143

Post by kleiba2 »

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…

> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way.

This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data mining, profiling, and other privacy-related aspects. But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear...

To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#144

Post by bryanrasmussen »

otterley wrote: post #135
victorbjorklund wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can and has been in many cases in many legal systems. For example, let’s say you walk into my store to buy a dish washer. I say ”here is an extended warranty that I will give you. Just sign” you sign it instead of reading 15 pages of boilerplate. In the end of the document it says you now owe me 10 billion dollars. Doubt I will be able to enforce it in most legal systems.

That’s not an “I didn’t read it” defense. That’s a “term is this contract is unconscionable” defense. They’re not the same thing. I was speaking strictly of the former. Also, striking an unconscionable term typically does not void the whole contract. Just the term in question.

As a general rule I believe many online terms of use, eulas and similar online contracts are examples of procedural unconscionability, in that length is often too long that one can be expected to read it in the day to day action of "surfing the web", I believe this is also the opinion of the EU and many of its member states, hence the limitations found on enforcement of such contracts.

Aside from that many of these contract have terms that might be considered substantive unconscionability - for example if terms state that what you post can be used by the company that owns the service for marketing of the company or the service I feel this would not make it through most legal systems that I feel before the attempt are not inherently corrupt.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#145

Post by ChadNauseam »

tempestn wrote: post #112
otterley wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Why would a reasonable person not read it?

I just visited theguardian.com to see their cookie banner. The banner says this:

> Your Privacy (`x` button to close the tab)

> US residents have certain rights with regard to the sale or sharing of personal information to third parties.

> Guardian News and Media and our partners use information collected through cookies or in other forms to improve experience on our site and pages, analyze how it is used and show personalized advertising.

> You can opt out of the sale of all of your personal information by pressing

> Do not sell or share my personal information

It's 3 sentences, plus a button that says "Do not sell or share my personal information". I actually don't even think this is GDPR compliant, because my layman's understanding says that GDPR consent must be presented as opt-in, rather than opt-out. (I guess they are going for CCPA/CPRA compliance?) But anyway, I would think that a reasonable person could be expected to notice a button that says "Do not sell or share my personal information" and then click it, especially when it's portrayed prominently at the bottom of the page.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#146

Post by frollogaston »

ezoe wrote: post #141

It's technically stupid in the first place. It's YOUR browser, a locally running software on a physical computer YOU own which memorize the cookie key-value pair a remote host told YOU to memorize and YOU return the same value later. It's YOU who allowed the cookie. If YOU don't want to allow the cookie, YOU simply not allow it. You are technically 100% control on cookie. These JavaScript implemented in-page UI has n…

It's not quite the same thing since the same cookie used for login (doesn't require consent) could be used for tracking (requires consent). But also, basically nobody cares.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#147

Post by nekusar »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #131
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…

It can and has been in many cases in many legal systems. For example, let’s say you walk into my store to buy a dish washer. I say ”here is an extended warranty that I will give you. Just sign” you sign it instead of reading 15 pages of boilerplate. In the end of the document it says you now owe me 10 billion dollars. Doubt I will be able to enforce it in most legal systems.

This is bullshit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-su...

"Disney is trying to have a widower's wrongful death lawsuit dismissed and sent to arbitration because the man had signed up for a Disney+ account several years ago."

Now what happened was that Disney quit fighting over really bad PR. But the court challenge would have liteky succeeded.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#148

Post by otterley »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #144
otterley wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not an “I didn’t read it” defense. That’s a “term is this contract is unconscionable” defense. They’re not the same thing. I was speaking strictly of the former. Also, striking an unconscionable term typically does not void the whole contract. Just the term in question.

As a general rule I believe many online terms of use, eulas and similar online contracts are examples of procedural unconscionability, in that length is often too long that one can be expected to read it in the day to day action of "surfing the web", I believe this is also the opinion of the EU and many of its member states, hence the limitations found on enforcement of such contracts. Aside from that many of these c…

I would personally be shocked if the EU voids click-wrap agreements for unconscionableness based on the process alone. I’m not super familiar with EU law; is that what it truly says? I rather doubt it because I do business in the EU and have been asked to agree to terms as a condition of making purchases online there.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#149

Post by alex1138 »

drnick1 wrote: post #43

uBlock Origin with all "annoyance" filters enabled. I haven't seen a cookie banner in years. Another good one to have the "hide Youtube shorts" filter, featured on HN a while back.

That didn't work for me and so now I've added the specific cookie banner options. it's in the filter lists
Post reply on HN