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

421–430 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#421

Post by tempestn »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #380
tempestn wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right about explicitly set preferences. What do you see as the harm in website owners using aggregated analytics data to improve their sites?

Abstract: It's still spying on users. Practical: Supposedly-aggregated stats have a history of actually being perfectly possible to analyze back into individually identifiable information. Also, it's conveniently the same tech stack in a way that makes it easier to make an actual slippery slope.

The practical argument I can understand. From the abstract argument though, it sounds like you'd be opposed even if the anonymization could be guaranteed, which I don't understand. Why is it "spying" to try to understand in aggregate how users are using your website? How are you supposed to eg. identify usability problems without this information? And what is the harm to users? (Again, in the abstract case where we leave aside any possibility of individual users being identified.)

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#422

Post by jeremyjh »

duxup wrote: post #417
jeremyjh wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The companies want to track everything you do on the web. EU passes a law that says they have to ask for permission first. They all comply maliciously because they still just want to track you. Then you blame the government.

The mechanism that I have to make a legal agreement with every site was a government choice, and a poor one.

No, its the website's choice. They want to track you. The government said they need permission to do that. They could offer a better experience by just not tracking you.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#423

Post by TurdF3rguson »

preg_match wrote: post #215
tempestn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aggregated analytics do, and you can't run a serious website without some kind of analytics. Preference-storing does as well, despite any reasonable user expecting that, if they set a preference, it will be saved.

You don't need cookies for basic aggregated analytics. Now if you want to track and record mouse movement, you do, and that's a privacy concern. The law really has nothing to do with cookies, it has to do with privacy, tracking, and PII. You can absolutely save preferences and perform analytics. What you can't do is hoard data that is personally identifiable for purposes that are not obvious to the consumer.

Actually you can't send any cookie that is not essential to the operation of the website without consent and that would include analytics regardless of PII. same for pixel tracking / fingerprinting, it's all a no-no.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#424

Post by duxup »

jeremyjh wrote: post #422
duxup wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mechanism that I have to make a legal agreement with every site was a government choice, and a poor one.

No, its the website's choice. They want to track you. The government said they need permission to do that. They could offer a better experience by just not tracking you.

The result is entirely predictable. They picked it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#425

Post by fuzzzerd »

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.

Windows phone had this exact feature. Obviously it didn't survive the duopoly of iOS and Android, but the feature was alive and well for many years before the whole OS was killed.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#426

Post by kalleboo »

xp84 wrote: post #331
thom wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of UK sites (Reach local news stuff) now explicitly say take cookies or pay, which tbh I always thought was illegal.

It's wild to me that anyone thinks that would be a reasonable law (whether or not it is law, I have no clue, I don't live in UK or EU). If you made a website and you said "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or sign a name, any name you wish, in my guestbook" what business is it of the government to say "No, this random person refuses to pay or sign the book, but Thom, you have to le…

You're fooling yourself if you think clearing cookies does anything. Everyone is doing browser fingerprinting instead these days.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#428

Post by kalleboo »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #413
thom wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing bad actors to act badly against all but the most sophisticated users is exactly where lawmakers should be stepping in. Sorry you find that controversial.

YouTube is a site that pretty much everyone has an account already for (and therefore have already consented), but say you make YouTube 2, you can only make money if people allow personalized ads (they pay 10-20x untargeted ads). 90% less revenue means your business model doesn't work. The government in the area has decided you can't refuse service to customers that cost you money (people who don't consent). You simp…

What if I want to start a restaurant that can only make money if I use expired ingredients, run the fridge at a higher temperature to save on electricity, and don't waste my employee's time by washing their hands? These food safety laws mean my business model doesn't work.

I simply will have to go out of business.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#429

Post by TurdF3rguson »

IanCal wrote: post #298
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…

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.

Is there any other way to get that data? It's clearly about cookies but it's specifically about tracking cookies.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#430

Post by kalleboo »

tqi wrote: post #394
fsflover wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These popups aren't about cookies but really about spying. It seems you have nothing to hide. I understand: I also don't. However, the problem with spying is not about individual secrets but about the society and democracy. Lack of privacy harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to tar…

A right to privacy also includes the freedom to forgo privacy in return for other benefits.

"Participating in basic society" isn't a "benefit"
Post reply on HN