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

291–300 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#291

Post by PunchyHamster »

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.

which they can be sued for as that's not compliant way to handle it. Just that nobody bothers

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#293

Post by qilo »

jsrozner wrote: post #206
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?

Still works on Chrome 150, but it is the last supported version. Chrome 151 is being released on July 28.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#294

Post by mike_hock »

aspbee555 wrote: post #63
mike_hock wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

changing IP is not really enough for privacy, there is many ways to fingerprint your machine/browser and uniquely identify you across networks https://creepjs.org/checker

No, but it's the obvious starting point. You can then put additional laws on top banning fingerprinting out of band (if you care about window dressing), fund development of anti-fingerprinting technologies, fund Tor, run exit nodes in a transparent and publicly auditable fashion, etc.

It's not hard to make privacy work when you are the government rather than working against a hostile one.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#296

Post by IanCal »

basch wrote: post #120
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…

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.

In a way it is - or rather it wouldn’t t change anything if we added more features.

The default is “no”. Without explicit consent you can’t do a lot of things.

You can’t have a default yes, because how can you agree with consent but automatically to everything?

And if it’s a no, are you saying you can’t ask a user for permission to use their data for a specific purpose?

And if you can ask, that’s what we have right now.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#297

Post by buildwrangler »

haute_cuisine wrote: post #287
buildwrangler wrote: post #269

This should just be a browser setting with a per site opt-in when more data collection is needed. Just like you can enable notifications, webcam etc... or set it to always deny. Why the fuck do people have to keep stating the same preference over and over again. This is a hellscape of bad government AND corporate policy colliding.

You don’t need a cookie notice if you don’t track. We also had “do not track” is safari.

Yeah, the "do not track" setting I think was the browser based solution that sadly never took off. Better government policy should have required respecting that setting instead of the cookie banners.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#298

Post by IanCal »

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…

It’s not about cookies. It’s about what the site is allowed to do with your data. Cookies are an implementation detail.

It’s baffling we’re having this misunderstanding on this site in 2026 still.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#299

Post by whstl »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #196
nickff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Don’t force your wordview on people through regulation

As opposed to enforcing your worldview with a lack of regulation?

Because that's precisely what's happening, with the advertisement industry enforcing their worldview through lack of compliance.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#300

Post by WheatMillington »

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…

Most people reasonably assume that if they click Reject they won't get the page they're looking for.
Post reply on HN