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

151–160 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#151

Post by troupo »

alt227 wrote: post #52
troupo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it might also be "you can have this content for free". ads don't require invasve and pervasive tracking

You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.

> but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.

Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#152

Post by johndhi »

how about: -if we really don't like targeted advertising, just outlaw it -then let websites do whatever they want with our cookies so long as they aren't targeted advertising

instead of building websites and writing laws over the span of decades that just seem to want to ban targeted advertising but don't actually do it. FFS.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#153

Post by otterley »

tacitusarc wrote: post #111
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…

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.

It just won’t fly in court. Full stop. There are perhaps other defenses to be raised, like unconscionable terms, but not that one.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#154

Post by alexandre_m »

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…

That works well for controlled devices like phones, tablets, and TVs, but it’s much harder on desktops unless you expect parents to become IT administrators.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#155

Post by readread »

kleiba2 wrote: post #143
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…

"Accept all" always makes it go away immediately.

Some variant on "reject" takes more effort like 70% of the time. Which is on purpose, of course. The ones that aren't maliciously-complying have a "necessary only" button that insta-closes it, but tons pretend that you might want to allow some spying but not all of it and make you go through another screen if you don't just "accept all".

> 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.

Then it'd be possible to default it to "nope" (Firefox, and perhaps Safari, might do this) or to allow a "never, anywhere" setting the first time the question is asked, and malware and spyware vendors know that'd mean a much larger proportion of denials.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#156

Post by ryukafalz »

kleiba2 wrote: post #143
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…

> But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear...

Oftentimes the reject flow is substantially more annoying than the accept flow. I click reject myself when it's an option, but I can absolutely understand how people might get conditioned to click accept when clicking reject might result in more popups.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#157

Post by unclebucknasty »

kleiba2 wrote: post #143
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…

>This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept"

There's a mismatch between the velocity at which people visit sites and the time it takes to navigate the cookie particulars of each site.

And, we can dismiss this as people being uninformed or lazy but the reality it is that's actually not so unreasonable. Cookies are in some ways near the bottom of the list where privacy is concerned, given everything else from breaches to search dossiers to device finger-printing to mobile device location-tracking to the ubiquity of cameras in the real world, and on and on.

The idea that we're clawing back privacy in any meaningful sense by blocking a few cookies here and there is kind of quaint.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#158

Post by troupo »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #145
tempestn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 an…

This is indeed a rather good implementation of ehat GDPR requires: clear unambiguous language, an opt-out available immediately.

This is the definition of informed consent

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#159

Post by Paracompact »

nekusar wrote: post #147
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.

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.

What's bullshit? You mean to say the dishwasher buyer would legally be on the hook for billions?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#160

Post by troupo »

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…

This has nothing to do with cookies, and everything with pervasive and evasive tracking.

E.g. storing your precise geolocation for 12 years: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

Post reply on HN