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

221–230 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#221

Post by preg_match »

GaryBluto wrote: post #113
alt227 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still doesnt solve the problem of the millions of parents that just dont care.

Why should I care that they don't?

Right, this is the big picture nobody acknowledges. I'm not paying the price for your kid because I don't know them. I couldn't care about them even if I wanted, because their existence doesn't even intersect with my life.

Yes, as a parent, you are required to put in more effort into parenting your kid than random hypothetical people. That's obvious, and has been the case forever.

I understand the concept of community, but community is not me sacrificing my privacy for someone 1000 miles away.

If parents don't want to do X, Y, and Z to lock down their devices then that is their right. And I support their rights, so the conversation is over right then and there IMO.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#222

Post by mcfedr »

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…

if parents wont make the slightest bit of effort why should the rest of us pay to keep their children safe?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#223

Post by morsch »

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…

But I don't want to delete cookies? I want websites to use cookies that are technically necessary e.g. for keeping me logged in. I just don't want them to use it to track my behavior especially inter-website.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#224

Post by mcfedr »

dijit wrote: post #53
alt227 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem there is that parent's won't know how to do it, or won't care. This is unfortunately the reality. The other day a friend asked me to help her make her phone safer for her kids to use. I started by asking if she set permissions on the apps she downloaded. She looked at me blankly, "What permissions?". I proceeded to show her how you can granularly control what you allow each app to do on your phone and w…

"is this device for you, or a child" is one of the first options when setting up an iphone. I haven't set up an Android in a while, but, I doubt it's massively different.

it's very simpler, i recently got an android tablet for my child and it would take a lot of effort to miss all the stuff about setting it up for a child

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#226

Post by smallmancontrov »

remus wrote: post #213
jackson1442 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yes, you are. The legislative process around EPD/EPR fully anticipated the malicious compliance and it became a back-and-forth political football long before anything was passed. The legislators were never dumb and the corporations were always greedy+powerful.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#227

Post by preg_match »

charcircuit wrote: post #188
alex_suzuki wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not convinced this is a real concern. Bots, maybe, but then again even fancy analytics will be fucked by that because they use hundreds or thousands of high-reputation residential IPs. So, you're optimizing for the wrong thing I think.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#228

Post by bee_rider »

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…

I don’t see how we could possibly prove that the person who clicked “I agree” is still the person using the computer.

Or that any actual human is aware that an agreement was made (since an AI can find a checkbox nowadays or software can be configured to bypass it). One way to add balance could be to require people asking for contracts to actually treat them like real serious legal documents, show up for the signing, and figure out who they are making an agreement with.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#229

Post by dijit »

dwedge wrote: post #194
dijit wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

“I don’t want to be seen agreeing with someone who combats obvious bad faith arguments with sarcasm - please think of me as being better than that, even though we would end up in a pissing contest about nuance or a digression away from the main point”.

Bit of a mouthful though.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#230

Post by logicallee »

All browser providers have been required by international law[1] to send such a cookie popup suppression signal as set by the user, or one substantially like it, since July 18, 2026 and all web sites have been required to obey it or a superseding Internet standard:

https://stateofutopia.com/laws/2/law2.html

This is not a proposal, it is duly ratified international law that applies to "Every Browser Maker making a Browser available anywhere" and "Any site anywhere that receives a valid signal".

The EU Commission had until July 18, 2026 to modify its laws:

>"The site shall not display a banner, modal, interstitial, or other prompt requesting a choice already expressed by the signal. It may optionally provide a “Cookie Settings” or “Privacy Settings” link. This Law overrides all laws requiring such a display. Where any country or supernational entity has a conflicting law, it must rectify the Law within 30 days not to require such notification."

Therefore, insofar as it has not rectified its laws not to require such a notification, the EU Commission is in violation of international law as of 8 days ago.

Under section 7.3, "The State of Utopia may order compliance, require corrective updates, suspend non-compliant distribution, and impose civil penalties. Fines may be levied in any amount for continued non-compliance." so we can fine the EU Commission whatever you guys want ($1 billion? $10 billion? whatever four and a half millennia are worth) and just distribute the collected fines among you all as cash payments.

[1] Here is the announcement of the law 38 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48585778

Post reply on HN