Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

legiscope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 395 posts

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#101

Post by coldpie »

serial_dev wrote: post #67
coldpie wrote: post #6

Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banner filters. Fixed. Enable the Annoyances filters too, while you're in there. If you're on iOS, the Kill Sticky bookmarklet does a decent job of cleaning these up without breaking most sites: https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web...

While I appreciate your workarounds, the issue is not fixed. Almost everyone is going to keep clicking these stupid banners. It’s not okay, it’s not fixed until the rules are adjusted and we have less tracking and’s less pointless banners.

You're right, but I can't fix that. What I can do is help HN readers who didn't know about that filter list. Maybe they can help the people they know.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

diggan wrote: post #38
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> predictable that ultimately people would blame the regulation instead of the companies It was predictable this would result in disclosure/consent spam. > No need to prove compliance if GDPR doesn't apply If you are in the EU, GDPR applies. It may not be relevant. But you’re subject to it and its regulatory arms. (And if you have a competitor in the EU, it’s known practice you can waste time and money with requests…

> If you are in the EU, GDPR applies. It may not be relevant. But you’re subject to it and its regulatory arms. I think you might be missing that I'm talking about this from the companies perspective, not from the perspective of a person inside EU. If the company doesn't store any "personal data", GDPR has nothing to do with it. It's strictly about "personal data" as defined here: https://gdpr.eu/article-4-definition…

> If the company doesn't store any "personal data", GDPR has nothing to do with it. It's strictly about "personal data"

You’re still obligated to respond to requests, even if it’s no response. And data regulators will still follow up on groundless complaints.

DMCA is strictly about copyright violation. If you’re not violating copyrights it should have nothing to do with you. But that isn’t how things play out in reality.

> have any quotes/sources for this?

No, just anecdotal. Every Magic Circle firm, however, will happily file complaints in multiple jurisdictions for you.

I’ll admit I’ve used GDPR a touch vindictively after a customer service interaction went poorly. Lots of requests, wait for a minor fuck-up, escalate to multiple data regulators because I technically have multiple nexuses. European equivalent of copying your state AG on a letter, except the burden to respond is on the company.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#103

Post by wtetzner »

tonymet wrote: post #59
coldpie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So use Firefox.

tell that to the billion internet users who suffer from cookie banners. I'm talking about the network effect.

I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker.

Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#105

Post by Alupis »

ryandrake wrote: post #81
Alupis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. The EU law compels a popup for these types of services/scripts and 99% of people just click through them because t…

> Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. I think reasonable people can disagree about this, and if enough reasonable people think that a web site operator should not have that "right" then they should be able to pass legislation to curtail it. As a user, I say I should have the r…

Why is this different than a brick-and-mortar to you? Do people feel they are "private" when shopping in a retail store with AI cameras tracking patterns and behavior, names and purchases collected at checkout, loyalty "discount" cards to get even more data, etc? Even without your name, they can identify you by recognition alone, aka. an anonymized cookie used to track a specific user's behavior.

Somehow people think visiting someone else's private website grants them privileges to be entirely anonymous - it does not anymore so than shopping in a physical retail store.

If we keep going down this path, websites will require a full ToS/EULA just to access the site...

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#107

Post by legitster »

nicce wrote: post #80
legitster wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites Part of the problem is that the law didn't seek to distinguish between tame first-party cookies and the really naughty third-party cookies so the burden is equal regardless of how malicious the service is. > For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software engineer to code up a banner. This is actually not true. T…

> There's a lot more that goes into a cookie banner than you might realize, and there's now an industry dominated by a small handful of players (Osano vs OneTrust) Isn't this industry for those, who want to share their website data automatically with 100+ partners? For others, who don't really share that much data with others, less relevant.

If you are just running a static websites, maybe. But if you are going to run a website with any services on it (video content, eCommerce, member management, etc) you are going to have partners. Establishing a browser session with every single one would be pretty onerous (and honestly much worse for privacy) so a first-party cookie is a pretty good compromise.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#108

Post by nicce »

teruakohatu wrote: post #3

I am about as far from Europe as you can get, and I think my fellow kiwis also spent an inordinate about of time clicking EU mandated cookie banners. Cookies should be enforced in the browser. I think all the major browsers block third party cookies now. Bad actors can use other fingerprints to do tracking.

> I think all the major browsers block third party cookies now. Bad actors can use other fingerprints to do tracking.

One would hope so. Google cancelled the plans https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-scraps-plan-remove...

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#110

Post by Rygian »

teruakohatu wrote: post #3

I am about as far from Europe as you can get, and I think my fellow kiwis also spent an inordinate about of time clicking EU mandated cookie banners. Cookies should be enforced in the browser. I think all the major browsers block third party cookies now. Bad actors can use other fingerprints to do tracking.

"cookie" banners are required for any tracking, not just teaching based specifically on technical cookies.

Blocking 3rd party cookies has no impact. Everyone and their cousin can technically track you with first party cookies.

Post reply on HN