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

201–210 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#201

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

pverheggen wrote: post #199

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-fingerpri…

The good news is if you're doing Do Not Track you're probably in a good position to block cookie banners too.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#202

Post by layer8 »

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?

Tracking usually happens across websites, meaning the information is shared with third parties outside the people running the website where you accepted the cookies. Knowing your interests, behavior and preferences makes you prone to manipulation. The selection of information shown to you will be crafted such as it maximizes engagement. For example, showing you information that upsets you, in order to get you to react. Or just information with a slant or spin to influence your opinion. Nobody is immune to being affected by the distribution of what they are being shown.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#203

Post by fnord123 »

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…

> 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.

There is one. It's a DNT header. Knucklehead websites ignore it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#204

Post by otterley »

inigyou wrote: post #198
otterley wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

See my sibling comment.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#205

Post by jsrozner »

scbrg wrote: post #87
convolvatron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?

I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.

"I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#206

Post by jsrozner »

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.

Does this still work on new chrome versions?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#207

Post by preg_match »

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?

Because everyone agrees - cookies banners are annoying and need to go away. Everyone is on the same page about this. The easiest way to make that happen is "move them into the browser".

How often do you get prompted for, say, secure DNS or HTTP? Almost never, because your browser has sane defaults and controls that. So, there you go.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#208

Post by ethin »

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…

IMO any contract, waver, etc., shouldn't be legally enforceable unless the signatory has actually read it. It's always seemed to me to be one hell of a pathway of abuse (in a way) to just be able to bind someone to be legally required to do anything you want, for example, by just relying on them not reading the thing they signed.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#209

Post by jsrozner »

doodlebugging wrote: post #140

No need to kill the cookie banner. Just change the system so that everyone in every organization who supports cookies and other forms of user tracking and engagement will have every detail of their own existence and their family's existence broadcast in real time globally 24/7/365. Anyone who tries to opt out is jailed under 24 hour surveillance for a minimum of one year. EDIT: It's obvious that people really hate th…

Hypocrisy is the name of the game in SillyCon valley. Push YouTube autoplay slop on kids globally, but no ipads for children of the tech elite. Computer-based instruction for public schools, but 2:1 teacher:student ratios in the local private grade schools that cost as much as an Ivy League University. Etcetera.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#210

Post by preg_match »

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…

> Why would a reasonable person not read it?

Because this is there 1 millionth cookie banner, because every site and their momma has one.

Also, 90% of cookie banners are not this good. They tell you nothing, hide the "reject" button behind multiple screens, etc. At that point the consumer is trained to click accept.

Post reply on HN