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

501–510 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#501

Post by jeroenhd »

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

They don't want love, they want money. Tracking people is an effective way to make money. You can make some money with non-tracking ads, but these websites want more money than that.

Good websites sharing stuff for the fun of it rarely ever add these obnoxious banners. They probably should if they embed other trackers (like Youtube or Google Fonts) but often just don't. It's only the ones that want to make money off you that bother putting in the obnoxious banners.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#502

Post by tsukikage »

preg_match wrote: post #207
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?

Because everyone agrees - cookies banners are annoying and need to go away. Everyone is on the same page about this. The easiest way to make that happen is "move them into the browser". How often do you get prompted for, say, secure DNS or HTTP? Almost never, because your browser has sane defaults and controls that. So, there you go.

What is the sane default response to "we and our 242 partners value your privacy"?

I mean, it's even the literal truth: they value your privacy in the sense of having their software do a little internal auction to put a price on it.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#503

Post by latexr »

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

You could try to understand why that’s the case, instead of assuming maliciousness or incompetence.

https://commission.europa.eu/resources/europa-web-guide/desi...

> Use of the cookie consent kit is mandatory on each page of the DGs and executive agencies-owned websites, regardless of the cookies used.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#504

Post by ben_w »

xp84 wrote: post #393
windward wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Let me be clear, I can't stand the social-media industrial complex and the advertising universe. I've seen the bottom that we've raced to, with absolute bullshit popping up everywhere and entire sites full of slop with clickbait "headlines" just rigged to get ad impressions. And I'd gladly trade today's BS for any version of "The Internet" pre-2007. But the "Before" Internet wasn't some natural sustainable state. Bef…

> achieved great success with ad-based business models because of the ability to target ads better

There's an old saying in advertising, "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, and the trouble is I don’t know which half." - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/04/11/advertising/

The supposed benefit of the current model is to find and eliminate that wasted half.

Facebook has shown me ads for dick pills and boob surgery, ads I can't read because I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet, and ads for services that only apply to citizens of nations I've never been a citizen of who moved to a country I had in fact moved out of.

The reports I hear from people who buy ad slots are mostly unimpressed with the results; the word on the grapevine is that the "success" cases are not even average customers, but those who are vulnerable to getting scammed.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#505

Post by ben_w »

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…

> 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 let them see all your articles anyway."

More: "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or let more businesses connect the dots between this content and the rest of your internet browsing habits, than there were students and teachers combined in your high school."

Yes, it is technically possible to fake this content, or to auto-delete it.

But https://xkcd.com/2501/ applies. "It's easy to forget that the average person probably only knows the privacy settings for Safari and one or two Chromium derivatives."

(Real world user familiarity with software is much, much worse; this is an old survey now, but look at the chart near the bottom: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/)

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#506

Post by voidUpdate »

benrutter wrote: post #493
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 chi…

Well if the conclusion is "3% of people want to be tracked online", I'd expect the question to be "do you want to be tracked online" or similar, not "do you want to receive personalised ads"?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#507

Post by 4thguy »

igregoryca wrote: post #126
inigyou wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do

Sloppy, non-privacy-preserving "analytics" set up by some communications intern ≠ malice. They can mean well and still do a poor job. True privacy on the internet is notoriously hard.

Sorry, no. Code doesn't magically go from the intern's workstation to live. If the chain of incompetence is that long, then the most generous read is that they don't care

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#508

Post by victorbjorklund »

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.

No, it is literally ”I didn’t read the contract”. Let me guess you don’t have a law degree in Swedish law and you are just making statements on every legal system in the whole world?

Just read avtalslagen paragraf 30. It says just that. And it is different from paragraf 36.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#509

Post by Phemist »

tangotaylor wrote: post #316
dageshi wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense but if you're proposing a solution that involves whitelists... that solution has already failed. The web is too big and changes too much and that's before we get to the issue of applying laws to a whitelist based on different juristictions worldwide. And I have to question, who would administer it? The parents? They won't. Google or Apple? Why do they want to deal with irate parents or culture wars around…

> that solution has already failed. Yes, granted, a globally enforced whitelist probably wouldn't work. I'm referring to bespoke lists that parents control. I know plenty of parents that use this. e.g. here's Apple's feature: https://support.apple.com/en-us/105121#:~:text=Prevent%20ina... > It works for websites because they can cleanly identify a child and filter content if appropriate. This still doesn't solve the…

You are confusing a lot of different lines of argument, and in the end I'm not even sure what you are arguing against. I think you are mostly agreeing with the proposed solution by echelon?

You mentioned AB1856 which seems waaaaay broader than emitting an age bracket header based on user settings. It puts the onus on the website operator to not only prevent presenting content to wrong age bracket users, but also to determine the age bracket of the user.

Websites are shutting down wholesale because they cannot reasonably afford the CYA, or dont want to out of principle.

In echelons scheme the parent would be voluntarily setting the age bracket on the childs device right, so if a 12 year old is more mature, then go ahead and set their device to emit the 13-16 age bracket header. If you as a parent dont believe in this, then leave the bracket unset.

For a website operator it would be trivial to block the user from accessing the site if the suggested age bracket is too low (as long as we can agree on a single way of doing things, of course). Larger operators can do more heavy content moderation and present a filtered view to those same age bracketed users.

It is true you are adding more tracking signals, and I am sensitive to the free speech issues, but children are not fully emancipated members of society yet and parents need tools to deal with the difficulties of raising children in a digital society. The alternative now seems to be OSA-like, which is even more intrusive and a risk to privacy and perhaps free society as a whole.

Of course, OSA is really the goal and not the method, and we have to remember it is never about the children. Would children have been protected from e.g. andrew mountbatten if OSA had been around at that time?

Post reply on HN