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

191–200 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#191

Post by jackson1442 »

readread wrote: post #155
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…

"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 sett…

"necessary only" also tends to have a malicious compliance aspect where they don't store a cookie recording your preference and show the banner on every single page until you click accept.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#192

Post by Jtarii »

mike_hock wrote: post #37
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…

Don't fall for the "we are just stupid" propaganda, which is used constantly by governments acting in bad faith. Browsers already had settings for deleting cookies. There was never a reason for banners whose only function was pulling the ladder up from smaller competitors and concentrating power in the hands of an oligopoly that could siphon data directly from the OS. This coupled with a law mandating ISPs provide a…

Is there any reason to believe that the current laws being passed by the UK, EU are against the will of the people? Everything I have seen makes the "anti-porn" laws or whatever seem extremely popular.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#194

Post by dwedge »

dijit wrote: post #122
alt227 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a term for agreeing with someone's stance but disagreeing with the person because they're so insufferable and sarcastic in the way they present the argument?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#195

Post by Jtarii »

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

More likely it was designed by some firm that put the cookie banner there because "that is just what you do in current year"

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#196

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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?

> If people really cared, they’d choose browsers that have better control

If people really cared, they’d chose reputable suppliers that sell non toxic food. If they are eating food with lead, they don’t care.

Don’t force your wordview on people through regulation

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#197

Post by inigyou »

Jtarii wrote: post #195
inigyou wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do

More likely it was designed by some firm that put the cookie banner there because "that is just what you do in current year"

Yes and my "peanut allergy friendly" cookies say "may contain peanuts" because that's just what you do

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#198

Post by inigyou »

otterley wrote: post #125
inigyou wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so why do anything if it's impossible to tell what's good and what's bad?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#199

Post by pverheggen »

Here's the full text of the bill (Articles 88a and 88b):

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

As written, this doesn't eliminate cookie banners completely, only if your browser is sending a Do Not Track header or similar. That's unfortunate news if you use fingerprint protection - those send default headers, so you'll still be bombarded with cookie banners. Hopefully existing anti-fingerprinting solutions will offer a "default headers but with Do Not Track" option.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#200

Post by jsrozner »

Cookie banners are just a kind of ad. If you're at the site, the demand you have for the content on the site is probably close to inelastic (especially on services websites). The site exploits its effective monopoly on the content to raise prices to the user (in this case your time, attention, and experience).

There is ZERO cost to abusing the user over, and over, and over again by asking for permission to track them.

We shouldn't have the cookie banners at all because NO company should be able to do anything with tracking data. Just ban the use of user data by companies and most of SillyCon Valley's garbage behaviors are fixed.

Similarly, I should never get "terms of service updates" from digital companies because there should be no changes that they can make. You can provide the obvious service that you're providing; you can't aggregate my data for any purpose other than directly serving me; you can't aggregate my data with that of other users; if you retain my data for any other purpose, the government should take percentages of your revenue. I shouldn't have to wade through the BS that the mercenary corporate lawyers cook up to extract value from me.

Post reply on HN