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

301–310 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#301

Post by montroser »

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…

Well, the whole thing is theater anyway. It does not matter what you choose.

They will fingerprint you with or without cookies. They may or not try to honor your preferences, but their "partners" will not try, and by the time you see that banner, it's all out there.

"Accept" is the close button.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#302

Post by mike_hock »

inigyou wrote: post #281
mike_hock wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interwebsite is solved by partitioning and login cookies are solved by explicit whitelisting.

You think the average user is going to explicitly whitelist? The law requires sites to whitelist their own cookies under penalty of law, instead.

> You think the average user is going to explicitly whitelist

When prompted by the browser on first login/signup, yes, the same way the password manager works. With stored passwords, keeping the login cookie doesn't even add much value.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#303

Post by tgv »

mcfedr wrote: post #222
tgv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A bit of empathy goes a long way. That child may be your nurse one day, taking care either of you or candy crush.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#304

Post by lukeschlather »

IanCal wrote: post #296
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.

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 n…

Yeah I think it probably does mean you should be banned from asking in most cases. If you have a legitimate interest you don't need to ask. If you need to ask your interest is not actually legitimate and you know it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#305

Post by valicord »

hollowturtle wrote: post #116

I always wondered though why a website in the eu, for the love of their users, won't just drop cookie usage and instrusive third party scripts. Just do analytics on the backend and don't set any cookie, except for tokens in authenticated areas

[flagged]

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#306

Post by lukeschlather »

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.

All of these cookie forms have the same set of toggles. At a high level all anyone is saying is that we should just declare any kind of tracking cookies unconscionable terms for this kind of dialog box. Caching, shopping carts, explicit log in, these are totally fine and you don't need a dialog. The tracking stuff is not that hard to define and it should just be declared unconscionable.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#307

Post by jkaplowitz »

troupo wrote: post #158
ChadNauseam wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is indeed a rather good implementation of ehat GDPR requires: clear unambiguous language, an opt-out available immediately. This is the definition of informed consent

The GDPR doesn’t allow opt-out consent to count as consent. The only consent it recognizes as valid consent is opt-in.

However, since we are discussing the banner that The Guardian website shows to US viewers, I assume they’re trying to comply with California privacy law, which does allow opt-out regarding the sale of personal information.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#309

Post by ktosobcy »

singron wrote: post #260
tysilva wrote: post #18

Wow, finally. This would be a major quality of life update for browsing the web. As others have stated, not all sites merit the same preferences. Hopefully they can adapt a middleground of default settings with the ability to customize site by site.

As long as it's some automated signal, the User-Agent can use any logic it wants to send it without cooperation. The specifics of how to send the signal don't have to be legislated. E.g. Firefox's Tracking Protection has a global default a site-specific overrides, so it's very likely that they would do the same for this or just combine those features.

Comission wanted that, Google lobbied hard to NOT have automatic sigal… go figure…

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#310

Post by dijit »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #280
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.

It is probably technically possible, but as almost twenty years hasn't been enough to implement this feature in either of the big mobile systems, it's obviously a huge practical challenge for Apple and Google.

Yeah, obviously.

Greatest minds of our generation couldn’t possibly invent fast profile switching.

Lost technology.

Post reply on HN