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

Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 509 posts

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#201

Post by johnchristopher »

paulmd wrote: post #154
plopz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance.

No, they're supposed to serve generic, non-tracking ads. Non-targeted, or whatever the terminology is. It's hilarious how everyone has just forgotten that used to be a thing. The people on this website are literally the problem, you can't even conceive of a website that doesn't track every click you make across the whole internet, and you guys are the people building the new web.

I think it has more to do with an anti-authoritarianism attitude than anything else.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#202

Post by _bxg1 »

lmkg wrote: post #199
_bxg1 wrote: post #121

What if the EU instead mandated that browser makers have to keep up with, implement, and enable by default the highest levels of tracking protection possible? It would be far easier to enforce that on four or five organizations (half of which already do that) than to try and corral millions of websites into compliance.

GDPR applies to a lot of things that are not mediated by the data subject's web browser. For example, when your grocery store takes your purchase history (from your rewards card) and sells it to a marketing or credit reporting agency. Or when housing or job applications are rejected by error-prone automated background checks. The website stuff may be more visible, but it's not the main thrust of the legislation excep…

I'm pretty sure the cookies thing predates GDPR

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#203

Post by nihonde »

wsy wrote: post #147
fixermark wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who didn't see this as the predictable end-result of requiring cookie awareness and consent was hopelessly naive about how large vs. small organizations respond to unfunded government mandates. The money and time could have been a lot better spent on international awareness campaigns arming consumers with more privacy knowledge instead of expecting website owners to shoulder the informational burden (because t…

This is not the end-result at all. It is an intermediate result. European data protection agencies will start handing out fines, then courts will start ruling, and in a few years we will see the end-result. My prediction is that these Cookie shenanigans will be ruled as illegal according to GDPR, and then they will disappear.

I’ve been hearing this since 1997 when the first Data Protection directive happened. The enforcement never happens unless it’s serving a political goal, such as singling out a Chinese company or whatever.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#204

Post by renholder »

laumars wrote: post #189
renholder wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance. The €0.00002 it took to serve that one page just because the user doesn't want to consent to cookie placement/tracking? Is it really that harmful? NPR seems to do this just fine for GDPR reasons: Decline and Visit Plain Text Site

In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites. I do love NPRs approach though.

>In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites.

Aye, if they're only looking at it from a "cookie placement/tracking or nothing" hard-limit perspective, which is what the OC posited it as.

...but if other sites can absorb the costs, case in point: NPR, why is it such a dastardly evil thing to point out? Is there some foolhearted belief that if we cut tracking, tomorrow, the internet would cease to function? Is there absolutely no room for advertisements without cookies/pixels in the modern world...? Do we really believe that it's that expensive to serve webpages?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#206

Post by briandear »

bunderbunder wrote: post #57
pedro_hab wrote: post #46

What I don't understand is why websites hosted outside the EU, for non-EU users have the cookie banners. At least keep it in Europe, use the IP to geolocate, let the EU users deal it. Some companies have outright banned EU traffic, sounds like only showing the banners for EU IPs seems ok.

The law doesn't just apply to pages being served to the EU, it applies to pages being served to EU citizens, wherever they happen to be at the moment. So geolocation is not a satisfactory option.

> it applies to pages being served to EU citizens, wherever they happen to be at the moment. So geolocation is not a satisfactory option.

Completely false. Citizenship has nothing to do with GDPR. It's all about location.

An EU resident visiting the United States is not covered by GDPR while in the United States. An EU Citizen living in Los Angeles is not covered by GDPR. A Tunisian illegal immigrant in Berlin is covered by GDPR.

The 2012 draft of GDPR founded jurisdiction on the passive responsibility principle, which, while highly controversial, would, in fact have applied GDPR protections based on nationality of the person and not the location. However, that's not in the final version of the law. In Article 3, "resident" has been replaced with "data subjects who are in the Union."

"In the Union" means, inside the European Union. Which means the law's protections do not extend to those not inside the EU. The jurisdiction is unambiguous and crystal clear. Not a single word in Article 3 suggests that a Frenchman in Peru is covered by GDPR. Which means that your statement "wherever they happen to be at the moment" is false.

Here is the actual text of Article 3: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/

It seems that there still exists an incredible amount of ignorance about GDPR. It feels like people are reading analysis from others who are reading analysis from others and very view have actually read the actual law themselves. Or worse, people are using their memory of years-ago discussions about provisions or language that isn't in the actual final regulation and contributing to this completely wrong narrative such as "The law doesn't just apply to pages being served to the EU, it applies to pages being served to EU citizens, wherever they happen to be at the moment." That's 100% false. It's the exact opposite of the truth.

The fact on territorial scope is that GDPR covers an identifiable natural person inside the EU. It doesn't care about nationalities. It only cares about location. Geolocation is absolutely a satisfactory option, because an EU resident, citizen or whatever sitting in a Starbucks in Seoul, is not covered by GDPR. No matter how badly people might wish that to be false, the words in the actual regulation say otherwise.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#207

Post by alkonaut »

dmortin wrote: post #174
alkonaut wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a sites business model depends on using their users' data without their consent/knowledge then why would we want regulation to protect it from being eaten and their seat at the table taken by facebook?

Because we need independent sites too, so we hear other opinions than just the agenda of big money. It's not ideal that we need targeted ads for that, but currently there is no viable alternative and untargeted ads don't pay enough.

I think there is no alternative because it pays to much. It works both ways.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#208

Post by lmkg »

alkonaut wrote: post #95
scrollaway wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR absolutely does not do "more harm than good". It extends well, well beyond these dumb cookie warnings. GDPR puts the citizen/customer in power of their own data. They can ask for their data, they can ask for it to be deleted, they have (however shitty the UX) control over where it goes. They can contact large corporations and request these things and be heard out . I don't know how to explain it any other way: T…

People believe the GDPR is about cookie warnings. That's the problem. The GDPR is great and the annoying cookie warnings is about 1% of GDPR. You can't say "I liked it better before GDPR because cookie warnings".

GDPR is actually 0% about cookie warnings, because that's an entirely separate piece of legislation. But yes, the online stuff in general is maybe 10% of GDPR tops, and half of that is what goes on behind your back.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#209

Post by cycrutchfield »

scrollaway wrote: post #53
diminoten wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You beg the question by saying it's "their own data" in the first place. The idea that, because it's about you it's therefore yours, is wrong.

The famous difference between citizen-first EU and corporation-first US. Over here, we do believe that our data is ours. This is reflected in our legislation and regulation. You don't want these rights and protections in the US? Well good news, you don't have them. They still apply to us however.

You walk down the street and pass by me waiting for the bus. I write down in my diary "Today, scrollaway walked by me while I was waiting for the bus." Who owns what I wrote in my diary?
Post reply on HN