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

341–350 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#341

Post by [deleted] »

xp84 wrote: post #328
fnord123 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning. There is one. It's a DNT header. Knucklehead websites ignore it.

Because it doesn't mean anything specific and breaks entire business models (merely logging that you landed from an ad click and seeing if you check out counts as 'tracking,' doesn't it?) if interpreted purely literally. So, the only way to treat it is to either ignore it or to just send back an error code and message that says "Sorry, having some tracking is the condition to get this free content. Accept or don't."…

[deleted]

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#342

Post by kodebach »

jebronie2 wrote: post #327
Etheryte wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wrong in the EU, you don't need to ask for consent nor notify about cookies which are required to make the site functional. Tracking and ads don't fall under that though, which is why every site these days does need to ask for your consent.

No, you need to always ask for consent for cookies if they come from a third party, regardless if they are only required to enable functionality. You also need to ask for consent each time data leaves the website (for example when loading an image from a third party host). You can't even load a font file from a third party server because the users IP reaches that server without consent. Cookie banners don't just hand…

Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking.

Also AFAIK the Google Fonts question (is the IP alone already PII, if Google has no way of tying the IP to a person) has not been decided by the ECJ yet. There've only been decisions by lower level German courts that are still in dispute.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#343

Post by windward »

xp84 wrote: post #328
fnord123 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning. There is one. It's a DNT header. Knucklehead websites ignore it.

Because it doesn't mean anything specific and breaks entire business models (merely logging that you landed from an ad click and seeing if you check out counts as 'tracking,' doesn't it?) if interpreted purely literally. So, the only way to treat it is to either ignore it or to just send back an error code and message that says "Sorry, having some tracking is the condition to get this free content. Accept or don't."…

>breaks entire business models

So do car alarms.

I'm not convinced this is a business model I want to exist. We had an internet before it, and Google, and Facebook. I'm increasingly sad we can't return to it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#344

Post by nekusar »

Paracompact wrote: post #159
nekusar wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bullshit. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-su... "Disney is trying to have a widower's wrongful death lawsuit dismissed and sent to arbitration because the man had signed up for a Disney+ account several years ago." Now what happened was that Disney quit fighting over really bad PR. But the court challenge would have liteky succeeded.

What's bullshit? You mean to say the dishwasher buyer would legally be on the hook for billions?

Its bullshit that a terms of use can "agree" to what amounts to unconscionable terms.

Mozilla with their Thundermail just tried saying in their ToS that if you're mentioned at all in anything legal, you agree to pay their legal fees.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#345

Post by djaro »

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?

Because we live in a society and trillion dollar companies exploiting children for the crime of having negligent parents is bad.

The aim here is to protect the children. "Just let parents protect them" doesn't work when there's millions of parents that won't care.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#346

Post by AlienRobot »

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…

Exactly. Nobody wants to go to a news website/entertainment website/informational website that relies on ad revenue because they will get bombarded by banners and then by a huge number of ads that were increased because those banners slashed their ad revenue.

So instead everyone stays on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter, which ALSO operate on ads and have far more information on their users than any third-party ad tracker could ever have.

None of this has gotten rid of the privacy problems. It just consolidated them into the worst offenders while jeopardizing the plurality of the web. Now instead of people being tracked by Facebook on a website with a third-party cookie in a like button, they are tracked by Facebook on Facebook in a Facebook page because they never leave Facebook.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#347

Post by djaro »

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?

Because children shouldn't be the ones paying for the crime of having bad parents. Children should be safe regardless of what the parents do, because they're independent people and not property.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#348

Post by zelphirkalt »

IMTDb wrote: post #322
tomp wrote: post #236

Or you could just stop spying on people. No cookie banner is required for functionally necessary cookies.

Apparently the eu official website really needs to track you then. For what’s essentially just static content. I’ll consider dropping cookies banner when their website can work without. Stop the “do as I say not as I do” EU official website in it’s cookie banner glory: https://european-union.europa.eu/index_fr

They apparently hired incapable people to build that. Very silly to build it in a way that kind runs contrary to what the intentions of the very laws they are making are.

I get similarly upset, when I see Google tracking on official websites of government or public institutions.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#349

Post by AlienRobot »

scbrg wrote: post #87
convolvatron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?

I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.

I don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#350

Post by crote »

inigyou wrote: post #333
dotancohen wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract law of every civilised land already has a process for considering and accounting for duress.

It only accounts for "sign this or I'll kill you" not for "you have ten seconds to make a decision or the dream vacation goes to the next person"

Some countries already have provisions for this.

For example, in The Netherlands there is a legally mandated three-day period after signing the contract for purchasing a home during which the buyer can still call off the deal.

The reasoning for this is that it is a seller's market, with demand far outnumbering supply. In practice it is very common these days to end up in a bidding war, and even forego any kind of "sale is void if home inspection turns up issues" clause. Want to think about it for a day or two before signing the biggest contract of your life? Too bad, another buyer is willing to sign today.

With the mandatory three-day waiting period you avoid buyers being locked into a contract they basically immediately regret. It gives them some time to do due diligence, reducing the risk of buying a complete lemon. The seller can ask for a similar clause to be inserted, but it is less common. After all, the only risk to the seller is getting slightly less money for it, and that's already mostly dealt with during the bidding process.

Post reply on HN