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

231–240 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#231

Post by simonra »

otterley wrote: post #148
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general rule I believe many online terms of use, eulas and similar online contracts are examples of procedural unconscionability, in that length is often too long that one can be expected to read it in the day to day action of "surfing the web", I believe this is also the opinion of the EU and many of its member states, hence the limitations found on enforcement of such contracts. Aside from that many of these c…

I would personally be shocked if the EU voids click-wrap agreements for unconscionableness based on the process alone. I’m not super familiar with EU law; is that what it truly says? I rather doubt it because I do business in the EU and have been asked to agree to terms as a condition of making purchases online there.

Online retailers in the nordics occasionally try to post terms and conditions that contradict consumer protection laws, for instance retailers being on the hook for warrantying product(ion) defects for 5 years after purchases of products that ought to be durable, like electronics. The retailers win out on a substantial amount of the population not contesting it, but if you as a consumer go through the process the findings is basically always in your favor, despite there being agreements to something else. Telecommunications providers also have a long history of having their consumer invoices being voided for being unconscionable despite service agreements, especially in cases with children playing with devices (but otherwise also), going all the way back to the landline age.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#232

Post by goodrubyist »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#234

Post by Y_Y »

otterley wrote: post #135
victorbjorklund wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can and has been in many cases in many legal systems. For example, let’s say you walk into my store to buy a dish washer. I say ”here is an extended warranty that I will give you. Just sign” you sign it instead of reading 15 pages of boilerplate. In the end of the document it says you now owe me 10 billion dollars. Doubt I will be able to enforce it in most legal systems.

That’s not an “I didn’t read it” defense. That’s a “term is this contract is unconscionable” defense. They’re not the same thing. I was speaking strictly of the former. Also, striking an unconscionable term typically does not void the whole contract. Just the term in question.

That's why billionaires don't buy their own dishwashers

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#235

Post by dageshi »

tangotaylor wrote: post #171
echelon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>>>>> 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 nonsense... THIS Holy shit. This is such an obvious fix. And it shuts up those surveillance state goons immediately. My God, why have we tried to summon up the ghost of 1984 when such a simple fix as this will do. Parents can lock devices into "child mode" that emits "user…

> Parents can lock devices into "child mode" that emits "user is child" headers. Websites can then block. CA tried this with AB 1856. I wasn't a fan of this (neither was EFF) because of the privacy and tracking concerns of blasting the fact that the user is a child to all websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/one-step-forward-two-s... It would better for the block to happen at the device level. That is, the…

No offense but if you're proposing a solution that involves whitelists... that solution has already failed.

The web is too big and changes too much and that's before we get to the issue of applying laws to a whitelist based on different juristictions worldwide.

And I have to question, who would administer it? The parents? They won't. Google or Apple? Why do they want to deal with irate parents or culture wars around what is or is not on the list?

There is obvious increasing demand for this from parents, politicians are going to act on it, I think a "this is a child" header is the only one that actually really works. It works for the parents because it's easy to setup. It works for websites because they can cleanly identify a child and filter content if appropriate.

It seems to me that every other solution than a "this is a child" header is either impractical or way worse.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#237

Post by goodrubyist »

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…

Agreeing to terms and contracts without reading or at least skimming them is not responsible adult behavior and should not be used as a model for legislation, no matter how many people do it. I agree that we do have a culture where private law is not taken very seriously, and that's very unfortunate.

People do not have a right (morally speaking, not legally) to access or use a service (or a website) etc without having to read/agree to the terms (applies to analog and digital).

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#238

Post by TheScaryOne »

goodrubyist wrote: post #232
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…

[flagged]

>If someone does not read a contract or a legal agreement, before accepting or signing, it's on them

When was the last time you read an entire EULA before installing software?

I'm going to guess the time frame is somewhere around "never."

These are nuisance contracts designed to jade people with legalese while stealing their rights to things like class action and enforcing binding arbitration.

Standard contracts sounds like the way to go.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#239

Post by Y_Y »

readread wrote: post #174
otterley wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Laws are the result of debate between sides and the prevailing opinion. The fact that laws aren’t identical in every jurisdiction worldwide reflects that there isn’t universal agreement on every question. Also, sarcasm isn’t welcome here. Please read the HN guidelines.

> Also, sarcasm isn’t welcome here. Please read the HN guidelines. Ah yes, I didn't couch my post in any of the various, rampant HN-friendly versions of shitposting. I'll try to follow your example from here on out. Excellent touch citing the guidelines at me after your role in this thread, A+. Re-reads this thread, taking notes

You can hardly expect a greenname to have mastered such a subtle art.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#240

Post by [deleted] »

layer8 wrote: post #202
nickff wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reac…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN