Live data from Hacker News

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

legiscope.com

151–160 of 395 posts

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

#151
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second cookies are blocked the industry moved to fingerprinting and other methods It's like piracy, there's only so much you can do plugging holes Cookie banners always felt like a feel-good solution. Made worse by inconsistent UIs, differing button texts, long explanations, etc.

> It's like piracy, there's only so much you can do plugging holes I say keep on plugging. When you make a law and bad actors find loopholes, the solution isn't to throw up your hands and say "Well, we tried!" The solution is to continuously refine the law as loopholes are found. Laws should get regular patch releases.

Yes that seems to standard practice in modern government. Impose a series of ineffective rules that do more harm on the public than helps them, and when it fails just invent new ones without considering why the last one failed. And most importantly don't get rid of the previous rules, just let them stick around a decade after it's been apparent they were ineffective.

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

#152
post #44
post #28

Because I use fresh incognito mode for each browsing session, I have to click through those consent popups on every website I visit. Quite frustrating to say the least.

You can use Consentomatic to have it automatically handled. It's from Aarhus University, open source. https://consentomatic.au.dk/

uBlock's cookie filters might be even more effective if you don't care to fine tune.

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

#153

People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…

How can the banners be necessary because of “naughty things” when the banners do absolutely nothing to mitigate those things in any way? All those things are still happening AND people have to waste time clicking useless banners.

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

#154
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...

Filters are unreliable, it is better to have the cookies banners automatically filled out via Consent-O-Matic: https://consentomatic.au.dk/

Which works on Chrome, Firefox and iOS.

The best part is that you can actually specify your preferences, but globally for all websites. I actually prefer to have the functionality cookies enabled.

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

#155
post #52

The whole thing is a colossal waste too, it was a law written by people who don't understand tech for special interest groups who don't want to actually make things better. If you don't want a website doing something on your computer, you start with the browser, not the website.

Future headlines after a browser compliance law made - “EU is destroying innovation!”

You shouldn't need any kind of law here. Consumers have 100% of the power as it stands in regards to browser tracking. The innovation should be in browsers and plugins, not donottrack flags or compliance laws.

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

#156
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did though? You don't need a banner for actually legitimate use (session Cookie, settings, etc) The things they're calling legitimate use just isn't, which is why they need banners.

The elephant in the room is that almost no one wants to host website without at least some sort of website analytics service, which does not fall under legitimate use. So that's why even a small blog is going to have a cookie banner. There are some analytics companies out there that advertise cookieless analytics, but they are either a) too simple for enterprise or b) a much, much worse privacy and compliance risk.

Even this can be done without a banner, as long as these analytics do not contain any way to link them to individuals/specific users

It's admittedly sound advice to create a banner for such a usecase however, as sanitizing all user data from these events is hard to guarantee, and you'd have to do just that to keep it legal

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

#157
post #148
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "for that analysis" refers to? Fraud prevention? If so, it is legitimate interest to do fraud prevention, so there's no need for a consent banner, first or third-party. Naturally you can't go and use this data for a purpose that has no basis under legitimate interest. Another example: Cloudflare is running DDoS prevention under our noses here at HN, for example, but there's no need to ask for consent, even…

> What does "for that analysis" To understand how customer's shop on my website. Heatmaps, view port, device type, screen resolution, frequency of browsing, where their mouse hovers the most, page dwell time, etc. These are impossible tasks for most website operators to do themselves. > For this you do need consent, if you transfer PII. If you don't want a banner you can replace it with a simple checkbox during the c…

[deleted]

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

#158
post #148
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "for that analysis" refers to? Fraud prevention? If so, it is legitimate interest to do fraud prevention, so there's no need for a consent banner, first or third-party. Naturally you can't go and use this data for a purpose that has no basis under legitimate interest. Another example: Cloudflare is running DDoS prevention under our noses here at HN, for example, but there's no need to ask for consent, even…

> What does "for that analysis" To understand how customer's shop on my website. Heatmaps, view port, device type, screen resolution, frequency of browsing, where their mouse hovers the most, page dwell time, etc. These are impossible tasks for most website operators to do themselves. > For this you do need consent, if you transfer PII. If you don't want a banner you can replace it with a simple checkbox during the c…

You don't need banners just because something is third-party. If there is no PII and/or legitimate consent, you don't need a banner. There are GDPR compliant analytics platforms, fraud prevention, third-party payment gateways, for example. They don't need banners.

As for the rest, it's quite inflammatory and I don't know how it relates to my comment, so I'll refrain from answering.

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

#160

People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN