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

211–220 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#211

Post by cuu508 »

dv_dt wrote: post #186
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…

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

uBlock Origin's "annoyances" filter lists also do the job.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#212

Post by dotancohen »

ethin wrote: post #208
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.

How to know if they actually read it? The signature implies that the contract has been read, understood, and accepted. I see no need for any alternative mechanism.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#213

Post by remus »

jackson1442 wrote: post #191
readread wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic in thinking this is just incompetence.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#214

Post by [deleted] »

otterley wrote: post #76
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…

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#215

Post by preg_match »

tempestn wrote: post #119
estebarb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Session cookies do not require a banner.

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.

You don't need cookies for basic aggregated analytics. Now if you want to track and record mouse movement, you do, and that's a privacy concern.

The law really has nothing to do with cookies, it has to do with privacy, tracking, and PII. You can absolutely save preferences and perform analytics. What you can't do is hoard data that is personally identifiable for purposes that are not obvious to the consumer.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#216

Post by vidarh »

tgv wrote: post #36
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…

The problem there is that parent's won't know how to do it, or won't care. Many can hardly operate the most user-friendly phone, let alone manage accounts. The online safety acts and its EU counterparts are somewhat risky, but nobody wants the mention the only proper alternative: a total ban on "social media." Not just for kids, but for everyone. Or a ban on smart phones, that would work too, at least short term. But…

UK mobile operators already defaulted to blocking adult sites before OSA, and lets the subscriber turn it off, which seems like a reasonable option.

It'd be even better if there was a way for people to selectively turn it off for specific devices without MITM the connections. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with a mechanism for that.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#217

Post by inigyou »

dotancohen wrote: post #212
ethin wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How to know if they actually read it? The signature implies that the contract has been read, understood, and accepted. I see no need for any alternative mechanism.

Well for instance if the other party is pressuring you to sign it then it can't be assumed that you had adequate time to read it and understand it

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#218

Post by ferngodfather »

otterley wrote: post #153
tacitusarc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really depends on the term they're trying to rely on. We have the "red hand rule" in England and Wales that means that unusual and onerous terms will not be incorporated unless it can be expressly shown they were fairly brought to the parties attention.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#219

Post by maccard »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #139
maccard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve made a few sites for work that aren’t our primary focus. The sites used cookies for login and for “required purposes” (storing in progress state). We did all the tracking on the backend, no cookies or client side trackers. On our go-live form there’s a question “do you use cookies” and it’s yes/no. If you say yes legal block the site from going live without the pre approved cookie banner…

Sounds like your legal department is broken. You should fix that. I mean that both in the sense of "you, plural" (your company should fix that) and "you, personally" (because diffusion of responsibility is a real issue, and someone needs to actually do it).

It was a 30k person company, I worked for a subsidiary and for better or worse that was not within my circle of concern or circle of influence.
Post reply on HN