Live data from Hacker News

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

legiscope.com

211–220 of 395 posts

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

#211

the angle of wasted productivity on the end-user's side seems ridiculous. If anything, count wasted resources in implementation for little gain for the end-user. "Assuming it takes an average of 5 seconds per interaction with a cookie banner". People don't spend 5 seconds clicking accept. They start reading their website, notice the banner in their periphery shortly after, and click it to go away.

I hope you're joking.

The banner often obscures the view, and the user need to dismiss it in order to know if the page contains the information user looks for. But in order to dismiss it, you can click "Accept all" easily and job done, OR you need to enter options by clicking the "manage" button, find your way around the banner, understand what are the options and which ones are checked and which are unchecked, then click "consent" or whatever terminology is used, but only after finding the button.

This easily can take up to a minute.

Yes, sometimes there's the "reject all" button, but not always. Also you need to know how they define the "reject all" button, because sometimes it probably may be defined as "reject some".

It's not a problem for me, because I autoclick them away with browser plugins, but when I'm on a mobile, the web is really hard to browse because of those banners.

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

#212
post #137

Why should websites even be trusted with implementing these banners in the first place? Browser vendors should be responsible for implementing these controls per-origin. Give a little banner pop-up built into Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and the rest. Have it display every time a new site sets a cookie for the first time. Or have it reject every cookie by default, unless I whitelist a site. This would result in a consist…

>Am I going insane or is the world going insane? You haven't been reading the news lately, have you?

> You haven't been reading the news lately, have you?

If you're referring to the US elections, then you might be interested in the fact that not everyone on HN is from US, and not everyone cares.

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

#213
The whole law should have been forcing sites to not ignore DoNotTrack bworser settings. It's a prime example of the EU being utterly useless because they don't understand the underlying issue and then choose a "solution" that's as much in your face as possible but doesn't change anything about the original problem. It's the whole plastic straw thing in digital form.

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

#214
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know the best way of not having to care about GDPR? Don't store PII. I hear this a lot. As an American that hosts casual personal websites, I can't help but worry that I'm in violation of the GDPR. For example, my router logs connections for debugging. And my NGinx server maintains server logs for debugging. These contain IP addresses. I'm pretty sure those are considered PII under GDPR. And there are a lot of…

I get it, but you’re not in violation if you never pass those logs to anyone. GDPR is intentionally obfuscated and made scary by people who have an interest in others thinking the regulation is onerous and silly (so that it is eventually changed/removed). The regulation is not very hard to read, I would recommend you do it if you haven’t and boils down to: “don’t pass on (process) information without informed consent…

Agree with you. My only addition is to remember to read PECR (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-pr...) alongside GDPR.

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

#215

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…

> somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. If I do not want a website to set any cookies, the correct course of action is to tell my user-agent to not keep any cookies from it.

All you can get this way is that you'll still have temporary cookies, removed after closing the tab, you will still have the banner, but this time the banner will popup each time you'll enter the website, because there's no cookie that will tell the banner that it has already been displayed.

I have it like this. But with that, I'm using a banner autoclicker. So the company gets my data, although different each time I enter the website, and I don't see any banners. Win/win?

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

#216

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…

> Part of the problem is that the law didn't seek to distinguish between tame first-party tokens and the really naughty third-party tokens Maybe I'm an outlier, but ideally I don't want them collecting any "tokens" without my consent. I don't care if they're first party or third party or birthday party. I should be able to browse web sites in peace without some company collecting anything. If the web site doesn't wor…

Well that's a thought everyone can identify with, but objectively speaking, they're paying with their energy to build the website, and paying their money to host it. Yet you would want to browse it for no cost at all.

How to resolve this?

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

#217
post #213

The whole law should have been forcing sites to not ignore DoNotTrack bworser settings. It's a prime example of the EU being utterly useless because they don't understand the underlying issue and then choose a "solution" that's as much in your face as possible but doesn't change anything about the original problem. It's the whole plastic straw thing in digital form.

This, exactly.

And possibly requiring browser vendors to implement Do Not Track in an accessible and user-friendly way. (Those whose business models are reliant on ads might need a firm nudge there.)

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So remove the consent exception against tracking? Simply make it illegal, banner or no?

Do Not Track header? It's the silver bullet but the stakeholders will argue it is invalid and cannot possibly be used to inform the server that the client wishes not to be tracked

Someone needs to put a stake in those stakeholders.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah because the "naughty things" are totally allowed. Can you blame them for trying to make money legally, and most people would say fairly morally (most people in the real world; not on HN). I think 90% of the blame lies with the EU. They had experience from the cookie law that this would happen. It like... say you would rather people didn't drink alcohol in pubs (because of all the scary violence it leads to)…

D: Drink in pubs till 10pm including no alcohol purchases after 10. That's the law here in Scotland. As annoying as it is, the same law doesn't apply in the rest of the UK but it's reasonable.

Sure, and that's a perfectly reasonable law. There's no "oh you actually can sell alcohol after 10pm as long as your customers fill in a 5 page form, which is what the EU has caused.

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

#220
post #137

Why should websites even be trusted with implementing these banners in the first place? Browser vendors should be responsible for implementing these controls per-origin. Give a little banner pop-up built into Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and the rest. Have it display every time a new site sets a cookie for the first time. Or have it reject every cookie by default, unless I whitelist a site. This would result in a consist…

Essentially because the people drafting the laws are ignorant about technology, and have a kind of weird snobbery towards it. They like the shiny, but don't try and engage them in a conversation about what actually makes it tick.

Knowing and caring how the plumbing actually works marks you out as a plumber, and sophisticated people don't concern themselves with those kind of details.

(Also various corruptions in the drafting process itself, of the sort which tend to arise when you have a mega-nation with competing interests and power blocs, but in this case it's mostly just ignorance.)

Post reply on HN