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

181–190 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#181

Post by ablob »

nickff wrote: post #169
basch wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If people really cared, they’d choose browsers that have better control, but that’s obviously not a priority for them. Why do you think this sort of thing should be regulated to suit your preferences when most people don’t seem to agree with you?

I think that's a stretch. People can care, but be unwilling to spend the time researching it or accept the trade offs that come with small browsers (which are often unsupported for applications you might want to use). There are many things someone might care about and at some point you have to prioritize. This topic in particular is practically a cold war where you always have to catch up on how things are, lest you loose it all. The required effort is disproportionate to the result.

P.S.: No true Scotsman spotted

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#182

Post by fsflover »

nickff wrote: post #165
kleiba2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I believe myself to be fairly well-informed, and usually accept the cookies, because I don’t foresee any potential harms, and it helps the people running the website. I am worried about many things like phishing and hacking/data leaks, but the valuable data isn’t cookie-related. What harm are you worried about?

These popups aren't about cookies but really about spying. It seems you have nothing to hide. I understand: I also don't. However, the problem with spying is not about individual secrets but about the society and democracy.

Lack of privacy harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#183

Post by tempestn »

dgellow wrote: post #163
tempestn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 individ…

That's not true and is a very common misinformation people repeat online. You can save user preferences in cookies without any consent banner, if the cookie isn't used for tracking. See here[0], page 6: > As stated in Article 5(3) ePD: ‘This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strict…

You're right; I haven't looked into this in detail in some time. You can't save inferred preferences, but can save things that the user has explicitly selected to save.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#184

Post by himata4113 »

Okay, but you can quite literally just delete the cookie banner. Cookie banner forces websites to ask for consent, no cookie banner = no consent = less tracking since they usually hold off on ALL tracking until you interact with the cookie prompt.

I have personally never ever had any problems with the cookie banner since Brave deletes them with 100% accuracy, there's sometimes where a site will refuse to function properly, but it's usually sites I don't care about anyway and if I HAVE to get it working I disable brave shield, turn off all tracking, consent and turn the shields back on.

It is unfortunate that most browsers cannot implement this as it goes against what the companies behind the browsers want. Deleting the cookie prompt would stop people from occasionally just accepting all cookies and opting into tracking after getting tired of it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#185

Post by tempestn »

tappio wrote: post #173
tempestn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many analytics solutions that dont require cookies. You can do aggregated analytics just fine without. Saving preferences does not require consent either.

My understanding is that any front-end analytics solution will require consent. You're right about explicitly set preferences. I was mixing that up with inferred preferences.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#186

Post by dv_dt »

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…

if ever there were a need for a small local ai plugin...

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#187

Post by pndy »

mmarq wrote: post #33

As if the DNT thingy didn’t exist…

Mozilla removed DNT as of Firefox 135, after 13 years since introducing it in 2011 with Firefox 4

In 2024 Mozilla acquired Anonym from former Meta executives and decided to introduce PPA: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=privacy+preserving+attribution

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#188

Post by charcircuit »

alex_suzuki wrote: post #118
kuerbel wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to prevent a single user hitting F5 a million times from messing with your analytics you need to track IPs which requires the banner.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#189

Post by pmlnr »

tgma wrote: post #134

I am old enough to remember Do Not Track and its failure and problems associated with it. What's new here? Why wasn't it adopted in the first place for GDPR?

Nothing.

People not reading back on history is still very much a thing.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#190

Post by Cyberdog »

shagie wrote: post #94

> 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. Unfortunately, the tracking industry is pushing back – and so far, they’ve been successful. > ... > You may think that EU privacy law requires cookie banners. But the law is clear: online tracking is prohibited by default. That's an excellent idea...…

Don't worry. I'm sure EU legislation will solve nuisances that are solely a creation of EU legislation.
Post reply on HN