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

491–500 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#491

Post by bhaak »

morsch wrote: post #223
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…

But I don't want to delete cookies? I want websites to use cookies that are technically necessary e.g. for keeping me logged in. I just don't want them to use it to track my behavior especially inter-website.

The EU law already allowed technically necessary cookies without any banner.

Every time you get a cookie banner with options, the website wants to know more about you than the law permits by default.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#492

Post by anonreplier »

tappio wrote: post #454
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long did it take x user to navigate from x screen to y screen is one of the most valuable metrics for any site, and most people consider this to require consent. Or at least it not being worth the risk to not ask. Acting dense like this isn't productive... And literally this information would be stores as anonymous user 12345, but that still would require consent (probably, or at least arguably).

That can be implemented. Within a session you don't need to know it's the same person tomorrow, so a per-day key derived server-side is enough to measure that someone took 40 seconds from x to y. No cookie, no localStorage, nothing stored on the device, nothing to consent to. Hash ip + user agent + your domain with a secret salt that rotates and is destroyed every 24 hours, and you are on the safe side. Of course, re…

In the world of zscaler, CGNAT & corporate proxies, IP address is nowhere near enough.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#493

Post by benrutter »

voidUpdate wrote: post #487

> "around 3% actually want to be tracked online" 3% of people want to be tracked online? I think it's more likely that 3% of people misunderstood the survey question

It probably depends on how people interpret it right? I doubt anyone is saying "I love being tracked" - but some people might choose personalized ads over anonymous ones.

I don't really use youtube natively a lot anymore, but I used to with Google's "personalised ads" turned off. I don't know if you've tried that, but the ads Google serves you if you opt out of personalised adds are sketchy, creepy and mostly not child appropriate (a lot of medical stuff, plus adverts for mail order brides etc). Back then I opted in to personalised ads because being tracked seemed a better option to me than being served inappropriate material without my consent.

Anyway, that's a long rant, but my point is, there's edge-cases and weird contexts in which I can imagine people saying something like "of the options I see as likely to happen, I'd most like to be tracked".

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#494

Post by billynomates »

voidUpdate wrote: post #487

> "around 3% actually want to be tracked online" 3% of people want to be tracked online? I think it's more likely that 3% of people misunderstood the survey question

I dunno, the people I've talked to about it (small sample) have said they don't mind because then they get more relevant ads. It's very hard to reason with that sort of thing!

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#495

Post by toxik »

bhaak wrote: post #491
morsch wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don't want to delete cookies? I want websites to use cookies that are technically necessary e.g. for keeping me logged in. I just don't want them to use it to track my behavior especially inter-website.

The EU law already allowed technically necessary cookies without any banner. Every time you get a cookie banner with options, the website wants to know more about you than the law permits by default.

... or cargo culted a site that did. I think this is far more common. It's almost like you're not a serious web site if you don't have a cookie popup of some kind.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#496

Post by Phemist »

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…

It reads like AB1856 needs website operators to prove they didnt serve their content to the wrong age bracket, which requires way heavier methods than simply trusting the emitted "user is child" header (or rather, trusting that the lack of such header is not a false negative)

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#497

Post by soco »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #406
Aerroon wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they fully anticipated this then surely they could've fully anticipated how annoying and useless cookie banners are? There is nothing stopping a website from using cookies regardless of the banner. If they are outside EU jurisdiction then there won't be any consequences either. The legislators were and are dumb. They have wasted an enormous amount of collective time for no benefit . Big corporations continued doin…

> surely they could've fully anticipated how annoying and useless cookie banners are They did. The laws were airtight in this regard. They simply lost -- whether through a last minute "tweak" or undermined enforcement mechanism I do not know, but I do know that the current state of affairs was fully anticipated and headed off at the point where I reviewed the proposal. Your vitriol is bass ackwards -- the lesson is t…

Sometimes the folks commenting here are exactly those corporations, so there.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#498

Post by jeroenhd »

dspillett wrote: post #86

> automated signals that would communicate your privacy preferences between your device and websites or apps 0 Sounds good, as long as it covers the "legitimate interest" bollocks⁰ that is often hidden in inconvenient UI nests as well as the basic preference. ------- [0] "we see your preference not to be stalked, but we want to anyway, click again for every partner to reconfirm you don't want them following you aroun…

The "legitimate interest" bullshit is already illegal. I don't see why websites would stop doing illegal things because of this change.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#499

Post by GJim »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #416
buzer wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually slightly narrower exception than people (and regulators) think. The exception is: > strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service. One very ignored qualifier here is "information society service". This is defined in Directive 2015/1535 and one of the requirements is that the service is "normally pro…

What I hate about EU laws is they tend to word these things like this. People act shocked when it leads to unintended side effects, but companies legal teams are just telling them they have no idea how a judge will interpret these broad wordings in regards to their business. People say this fixes "future loopholes" but as you see with the cookie banner, it just leads to every company assuming the worst case scenario.…

So you think letting the scummy AdTech industry do whatever they want everywhere is the better "strategy"?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#500

Post by GJim »

lucianbr wrote: post #265
jsrozner wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"

Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.

I'm again reminded that a significant percentage of HN readership are those working in US AdTech, who's very salaries are dependent on abusing peoples privacy. Hardly surprising a hefty part of the HN demographic slants towards opposing privacy laws.
Post reply on HN