Live data from Hacker News

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

legiscope.com

251–260 of 395 posts

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

#251
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything goes as long as it is useful for the user. Funny example: If they chose not to accept your spying cookies you get to set a cookie to store that choice.

Someone might think: surely seeing ads targeted for them instead of random ads must be useful / beneficial for the user!

The first step is data minimization. The second step is informed and revokable consent. Everything else follows from there.

Do targeted ads increase the amount of personal data that needs to be stored and processed and the number of entities that will access it? Yes they do. Are they required for the site to serve its stated purpose? No, unless the site is marketing itself as literally a curated stream of targeted ads. So they require informed and revokable consent (i.e. opt-in). Even if you think they're beneficial to the user.

It's not about what's beneficial. It's about what's required. That's why most sites try to group services by categories like "functional", "analytics", etc. If you want to embed a Google Maps view to help people find your physical store, that's beneficial but still requires consent because it shares their data with a third party (i.e. Google) when the browser loads that map. Of course in this case you don't even need a banner, you could just have a placeholder (often called "content blocker") instead of the map with the option to consent to loading the map and storing that decision so the user doesn't have to see the placeholder again.

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

#252
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.

No, it's not a prime example of the EU being utterly useless. It's a prime example of companies engaging in shady practises. This is what all the websites should have done: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for... Quote from the blog post: > Well, EU law requires you to use cookie banners if your website contains cookies that are not required for it to work.

It is quite ironic to get a cookie banner on tat page.

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

#253
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a lot more that goes into a cookie banner than you might realize, and there's now an industry dominated by a small handful of players (Osano vs OneTrust) Isn't this industry for those, who want to share their website data automatically with 100+ partners? For others, who don't really share that much data with others, less relevant.

If you are just running a static websites, maybe. But if you are going to run a website with any services on it (video content, eCommerce, member management, etc) you are going to have partners. Establishing a browser session with every single one would be pretty onerous (and honestly much worse for privacy) so a first-party cookie is a pretty good compromise.

> But if you are going to run a website with any services on it (video content, eCommerce, member management, etc) you are going to have partners.

No? At least not in the scale that would require these consent services. Services like member management are literally required to operate the website so those can go into the privacy policy (as would e.g. hosting on AWS or using a CDN).

The reason these consent services exist is that a lot of websites are just content mills that operate entire on behavioral advertising, whether it's the web version of a newspaper or just SEO blog spam. These often use hundreds of "partners" for analytics, ads, targeting, re-targeting, etc. And they desperately try to trick visitors into opting into those.

For your run of the mill Wordpress website you can just get a plugin like https://devowl.io/wordpress-real-cookie-banner/ - and in many cases the free version is good enough.

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

#254

I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread. Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner. There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident…

Yes. It's not the regulation but the misguided implementation that's to blame.

Sites and cookie banner plugins could just accept DNT signals from browsers and no productivity would be lost.

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You're framing website use as transactional but for financial transactions we literally require informed consent.

Also you seem to be operating under the assumption that your personal data is something that can be used as payment. The GDPR literally does not allow that just as human rights don't allow committing yourself to indentured servitude. You can't sign away your rights. If you share personal data you continue to have rights to that data and can revoke your consent. It doesn't stop being your data just because you handed it over, even if you did so willingly.

If your business model can't work without exploiting your users' personal data, your business model no longer works and it's your job to find a new business model that does. There are plenty of business models that only worked when indentured servitude was legal (let's not have the debate about prison labor in the US) and I'm sure you would agree that it's fine for those business models to no longer work. It's part of the risk of doing business. Innovate. Disrupt. Or perish.

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

#257

I am about as far from Europe as you can get, and I think my fellow kiwis also spent an inordinate about of time clicking EU mandated cookie banners. Cookies should be enforced in the browser. I think all the major browsers block third party cookies now. Bad actors can use other fingerprints to do tracking.

You The Point

No "cookie banner" is required UNLESS you are using cookies to track me or personally idetify me.... in which case, you must ask my explicit consent to do so.

Blame the parasitic adtech industry wanting trade your personal data. Not the EU for providing you with consumer protection.

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

#258

I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread. Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner. There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident…

I am informed and chose "No" each time. Why do EU lawmakers not allow me to automatically say no? All they have to do is add a line to the law enforcing companies to respect the DNT or GPC header. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Tracking isn't the only thing that the law covers.

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

#259
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…

The law isn't about cookies - it's about obtaining consent to process personal data.

You need to ask permission to track people and to do other things with their personal data.

Cookies are one method to do that, but any other method (like local storage or storing session state in a URL parameter) also counts.

Hence, it is not possible to have a system where a browser can tell a site what kinds of processing the user thinks are OK, as it would be too complicated.

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

#260
This calculation somehow assumes that clicking banners on your free time equals lost money in terms of production.

If the average time for toilet visits per day is 12 minutes, we are losing 89.8 million hours a day collectively across Europe, and continuing the same logic in as in the article, with 25€/h this sums to 5% of EU GDP being spent down the drain.

Maybe we should focus efforts on a productivity programme to ban bathroom visits?

Post reply on HN