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

RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

5snb.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#201

Post by Aloisius »

Macha wrote: post #134
dcow wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that nobody knows how to implement the law or what it even means, legislators, lawyers, engineers alike. There was a good somewhere and now we're in hell.

Nah, companies don't want to implement it as it's bad for their business model so they feign ignorance. I still remember being at an all hands at a former employer where the team presenting the revised cookie banners promoted as a benefit that it had opt in rates that would make an authoritarian dictator embarrassed to claim as uninfluenced

Considering the dozens of European governments that have been fined under the GDPR, I think it's safe to say that it's not just feigned ignorance.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#202

Post by SilasX »

GuB-42 wrote: post #136
SilasX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate the message. You can still laugh at the joke with the section there, you’ll just have fewer confused people to correct, and be in one less elite club.

The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone. Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent. Either do the "joke" style or the "angry rant" style, not…

>The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone.

The original criticism I wasn't objecting to wasn't making this distinction, and so this is a different argument. I wasn't defending the angry tone, only the existence of a section, "if you didn't get it, here's the point".

>Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent.

Okay, now it seems like you're saying the section would be bad even with a calm, non-angry tone, in which case my point about the need for a non-joke section applies.

In any case, the standard of "what if this were real life" is a bad one to use. An internet post is not an in-person interaction, and it optimizes for different things. You might as well object to footnotes on the grounds that, "hey, in real life, you wouldn't go on all these tangents because that's distracting".

If you already got the point, by the time you got to the rant, and don't need the explanation, you can (and should) stop reading there. It's not relevant to you. It's supplemental information for anyone who didn't get the point. You know, the ones you don't think deserve the same level of understanding as you, the ones who weren't elite enough, like you, to get the reference.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#203

Post by SilasX »

dullcrisp wrote: post #150
SilasX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained.

I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally.

>I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general.

But you were -- you just hid it under a veneer of snark, innuendo, and plausible deniability so I'd be tainted by the implication, while still allowing you to (right on cue) insist that's not what you meant.

Maybe now you're starting to understand why ambiguity in writing is a double-edged sword. But then, if you were that conscientious, I wouldn't have to make the original point in the first place.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#204

Post by latexr »

pims wrote: post #194
latexr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amusing to see this message heavily upvoted on HN when most mentions of Firefox here are welcomed with an avalanche of perfect solution fallacies. HN is not a hive mind. There are people here who love Firefox, people who despite it, and everyone in between. It’s tiring to always be reading your type of comment, as if everyone is a hypocrite. Maybe, just maybe, the people making those contradictory comments are…

> HN is not a hive mind. There are people here who love Firefox, people who despite it, and everyone in between. It’s tiring to always be reading your type of comment, as if everyone is a hypocrite. Maybe, just maybe, the people making those contradictory comments are not the same individuals. I didn't mean to say that all of HN despises Firefox, but simply that it very often brings negative sentiments, so seeing the…

> but simply that it very often brings negative sentiments

Just as often as it brings positive sentiments. Something that is (from anecdotal observation) quite common from both camps on HN is disappointment with Mozilla’s governance.

> does that mean it's comparable to a piece of software that sends every single bit of information it can gather to its parent ad company?

Not the argument I made. As I said, I use neither.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#205

Post by dullcrisp »

SilasX wrote: post #203
dullcrisp wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally.

>I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But you were -- you just hid it under a veneer of snark, innuendo, and plausible deniability so I'd be tainted by the implication, while still allowing you to (right on cue) insist that's not what you meant. Maybe now you're starting to understand why ambiguity in writing is a double-edged sword. But then, if you were that conscientious, I wou…

If you actually got that from what I wrote I’d apologize but I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#207

Post by lmm »

dylan604 wrote: post #200
lmm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interrupting you and preventing you from actually doing what your were actually wanting to do This is the part that would get the police involved, and no-one online is doing anything like this. Doris the curtain-twitcher compiles a dossier on everyone, maybe shares it in her gossip circles. No-one cares.

Every site that puts up a cookie banner is interfering with my doing what I want.

OK but that's the sites themselves doing it. If every shop puts an annoying greeter on the door or something, that's not something you would call the police about.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#208

Post by phatskat »

dcow wrote: post #131
Sander_Marechal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense. It's not about the cookies, it's about the data collection. You can use cookies without having to use a cookie banner by simply not gathering data you don't need. And if you do gather that data without using cookies you still need to ask for consent.

I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that nobody knows how to implement the law or what it even means, legislators, lawyers, engineers alike. There was a good somewhere and now we're in hell.

As someone who was helping to implement GDPR for clients when it took effect, it was a nightmare. We didn’t know exactly what to do, or when, or where, or to whom. The easiest solution for a lot of the implantations was “do the most so we don’t miss something, and pull back bits as we know more”.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#209

Post by shdon »

jeroenhd wrote: post #120
shdon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many web developers actually honour Do Not Track. I do, in all the websites I've made for my employer too, but I think I'm only getting away with it because my employer doesn't know. I've even made it so that browsing with Do-Not-Track enabled also skips the cookie consent banner and just assume the user wants no cookies other than the strictly necessary ones (like their session/login cookie), and doesn'…

You're taking exactly the right approach in my book. Thank you! I don't know if they still do it, but last time I browsed Medium I found that it claimed to respect DNT, which is quite nice. Lots of self-hosted analytics software also respects DNT out of the box and I don't think site administrators often bother to turn that off. Still, the vast majority of websites probably ignores the header, especially since it's b…

I do indeed check against both DNT and Sec-GPC (and navigator.doNotTrack and navigator.globalPrivacyControl in JS) basically treating them identically. GPC is ostensibly not about tracking itself, but about sharing data, though I just figured that data that isn't recorded can't be shared either.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#210

Post by voxic11 »

moomin wrote: post #199
SauntSolaire wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who then publish your demographics, preferences, history, and mental state on the global markets. Is there any evidence this actually happens? Or are we just going based on vibes?

Read any of the “I asked site X for my personal data” articles to get an idea of what’s going on.

I asked Google for my personal data and they had almost nothing on me. But I have opted out of every form of data collection so it makes sense to me.
Post reply on HN