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

No Cookie for You

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 634 posts

Re: No Cookie for You

#181

Post by OzzyB »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #128
random5634 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord, everyone needs banners and popups? Why not just let browsers controls who sets what cookies? I'm tired the endless cookie popups, can we come up with an "allow cookies if the browser accepts them" standard as long as that guarantees no cookie popups? Then browser vendors can ship a delete all non same origin cookies on tab close or something.

This is (mostly) based on EU law; entities that set cookies and track user data are required to get opt-in permission from users before doing so, and if the user declines, the entity cannot offer a degraded service. At least that's the idea. In practice, almost everyone just throws up a banner that says "fuck you, we're selling your data as hard and as fast as we can," with no opt-out available, but they pretend that…

> the entity cannot offer a degraded service

Does this mean that sites that offer free but ad-supported content still have to offer that content? So I can watch those free Youtube movies and listen to those Spotify tracks ad-free because EU Law says fuck you.

How is this fair?

Edit: Okay, okay, non-targeted (and no 3rd party) ads are okay, got it xD

Re: No Cookie for You

#182

Post by sebmonteil »

SilasX wrote: post #58
dry_soup wrote: post #3

A lot of people have the misconception that the EU cookie law applies to all cookies, but as the blog post correctly points out, that just isn't the case.

Right but it still seems like this could violate the GDPR, right? They say: >>So, we have removed all non-essential cookies from GitHub, and visiting our website does not send any information to third-party analytics services. But you’re still only allowed to use the cookies for the purpose the user gave you them for , right? So, if: a) the cookies are essential for the user session, and b) you collect the cookies, w…

Pure analytics is exempt of consent from the gdpr point of view from my understanding and from explanations of our local french regulator.

Re: No Cookie for You

#183

Post by pdpi »

tornato7 wrote: post #152
mattmanser wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new one I'm seening is you opt out easily enough, but there's a subtly hidden tab called 'legitimate interest' and every ad network claims to have a legitimate interest in harvesting your data, even though you've got no business relationship with them. What should be happening is every company that's done that should be getting massive fines, but instead all the enforcement agencies are doing nothing.

If a company is going to lie or skirt the law about their cookie use, why show the banner at all? It's almost worse to show a decline option that does nothing.

It's basically a form of malicious compliance.

Re: No Cookie for You

#184

Post by MzHN »

laurent123456 wrote: post #122

I wish there was a browser option "I don't care about being tracked" and that would get rid of all cookie banners (and, more often than not, full page popups). This EU law comes from a good idea, but it's terribly implemented - it implies that everybody out there is a lawyer and can make sense and agree on multiple pages of confusing legalese, and this every time they open a new website. This is so absurd, and the re…

This may not be exactly what you asked for, but there is https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

Also, it isn't the law that has been terribly implemented, although that could be argued as well, but rather the fault lies with the companies that do not want to abide by the law.

There are a few easy ways to check if a website is breaking the law:

- Is it as easy to say "no" to the consent as it is to say "yes"? If not, it's not legal, as the consent is not freely given.

- Is the website setting tracking cookies, or tracking you in some other way, before you have made your choice about the consent? If it is, it's not legal, as the consent must be opt-in not opt-out.

- Is it confusing? Then it's probably not legal, as the consent must be informed.

- Is there a button to "accept all" with no clear list of what you're accepting? Then it's not legal, as the consent must be specific and unambiguous.

It's not rocket science, anyone can read it up for example here https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/

Re: No Cookie for You

#185

Post by OJFord »

edoceo wrote: post #132
OJFord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For very recent comments, click on the timestamp to get the single comment view and be able to reply. (I had to do it here too.)

You folks might just be time limited on the reply - HN puts some brakes on "too fast" commenting

See my profile if you want, that was my first comment in hours. I think it is that sort of brake, (prevents heated discussions veing quite so quick-fire) but it's not on the user, it's on everyone for <'5 [or something] minutes ago' comments; drcongo's happened to be '0 minutes ago' when I loaded the page, so I clicked on it to reply.

Re: No Cookie for You

#186

Post by swyx »

interestica wrote: post #145
AndrewStephens wrote: post #31

I hate the standard wording on Cookie banners. Most of them should read: "The site uses cookies. Actually it doesn't - you are not logged on and we don't need to maintain state. But our advertising partners, their partners, and their partner's partners all love to set tracking cookies. Click here to consent to three dozen cookies from around the globe."

I hate the implication that those banners are some sort of consent. They're so commonplace now that people blindly click 'okay' or close them just to be able to read the site. If the wording was something else ("you agree that we can take your first born child") would it even hold up? The worst is when the banner says: "This site uses cookies. Agree / Disagree" -- it's not even asking for consent.

disagree button is the "Close" button unfortunately.

Re: No Cookie for You

#187

Post by dfreire »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #147
geek_at wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Also even if you do track your visitors you can use privacy friendly (and ideally selfhostable) Analytics like Plausible https://plausible.io/ so you won't need the banners either. Just don't include facebook like buttons or any of these widgets

Does anyone happen to know of a service like this that is free (not self hosted) for non-commercial, low-traffic sites? Or which costs less than ~$10 per year. I have a basic Github Pages site, and I currently don't know whether anyone is looking at it, beyond the very few who take the time to email me. I don't need (or want) to know anything about my visitors, but it would be nice to know that I'm not simply tossing…

You can probably find some at https://github.com/onurakpolat/awesome-analytics

Re: No Cookie for You

#188

Post by jmartinpetersen »

OzzyB wrote: post #181
thomascgalvin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is (mostly) based on EU law; entities that set cookies and track user data are required to get opt-in permission from users before doing so, and if the user declines, the entity cannot offer a degraded service. At least that's the idea. In practice, almost everyone just throws up a banner that says "fuck you, we're selling your data as hard and as fast as we can," with no opt-out available, but they pretend that…

> the entity cannot offer a degraded service Does this mean that sites that offer free but ad-supported content still have to offer that content? So I can watch those free Youtube movies and listen to those Spotify tracks ad-free because EU Law says fuck you . How is this fair? Edit: Okay, okay, non-targeted (and no 3rd party) ads are okay, got it xD

How does no 3rd party tracking without consent mean "ad-free"?

Re: No Cookie for You

#189

Post by Macha »

OzzyB wrote: post #181
thomascgalvin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is (mostly) based on EU law; entities that set cookies and track user data are required to get opt-in permission from users before doing so, and if the user declines, the entity cannot offer a degraded service. At least that's the idea. In practice, almost everyone just throws up a banner that says "fuck you, we're selling your data as hard and as fast as we can," with no opt-out available, but they pretend that…

> the entity cannot offer a degraded service Does this mean that sites that offer free but ad-supported content still have to offer that content? So I can watch those free Youtube movies and listen to those Spotify tracks ad-free because EU Law says fuck you . How is this fair? Edit: Okay, okay, non-targeted (and no 3rd party) ads are okay, got it xD

Spotify can show you non-targeted or contextually targeted ads, as is done with TV, radio, print media, movie theaters, billboards, etc.

The fact that spotify doesn't want to because it's less profitable is where EU law says fuck you.

Re: No Cookie for You

#190

Post by llaolleh »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #31

I hate the standard wording on Cookie banners. Most of them should read: "The site uses cookies. Actually it doesn't - you are not logged on and we don't need to maintain state. But our advertising partners, their partners, and their partner's partners all love to set tracking cookies. Click here to consent to three dozen cookies from around the globe."

I find these pop ups weird. Shouldn't we get an option to say, "Disable tracking"? These pop ups don't really have any utility because a banner won't stop them from reading the article.
Post reply on HN