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

Kill The Cookie Banner

killthecookiebanner.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#271

Post by croes »

mike_hock wrote: post #37
Phemist wrote: post #22

> Tired of misleading cookie banners? The EU Commission has finally proposed a solution: set your privacy preferences in the browser once, and never see another banner. So lawmakers do know how to make legally binding preferences based on device settings? What a crazy innovation.. now if only parents were given these options to indicate their child is using a device.. we could do away with all this Online Safety Act…

Don't fall for the "we are just stupid" propaganda, which is used constantly by governments acting in bad faith. Browsers already had settings for deleting cookies. There was never a reason for banners whose only function was pulling the ladder up from smaller competitors and concentrating power in the hands of an oligopoly that could siphon data directly from the OS. This coupled with a law mandating ISPs provide a…

You mean we had the DNT flag in the browser.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#273

Post by drnick1 »

jsrozner wrote: post #206
drnick1 wrote: post #43

uBlock Origin with all "annoyance" filters enabled. I haven't seen a cookie banner in years. Another good one to have the "hide Youtube shorts" filter, featured on HN a while back.

Does this still work on new chrome versions?

I think so yes, but Firefox is probably still better.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#274

Post by Etheryte »

jebronie2 wrote: post #257
tomp wrote: post #236

Or you could just stop spying on people. No cookie banner is required for functionally necessary cookies.

[flagged]

Not wrong in the EU, you don't need to ask for consent nor notify about cookies which are required to make the site functional. Tracking and ads don't fall under that though, which is why every site these days does need to ask for your consent.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#275

Post by hobo123 »

kleiba2 wrote: post #143
chrismorgan wrote: post #60

The other approach to killing the cookie banner is simply to declare that such a thing cannot constitute “informed consent”. (Perhaps: “ticking a checkbox and/or clicking a button cannot constitute informed consent”; and see what they try next.) From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them…

> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way. This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data…

"To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning."

This is exactly what browsers did back the 90s, they asked about every single cookie.

Then browsers got configurable options to simply accept either all cookies, no cookies, or only first party cookies (excluding third party sites unrelated to the domain you visited).

For now well over 20 years I have disabled 3rd party cookies in all browsers I use, and only in a few cases overall did I need to make exemptions.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#276

Post by bonoboTP »

echelon wrote: post #45
Phemist wrote: post #22

> Tired of misleading cookie banners? The EU Commission has finally proposed a solution: set your privacy preferences in the browser once, and never see another banner. So lawmakers do know how to make legally binding preferences based on device settings? What a crazy innovation.. now if only parents were given these options to indicate their child is using a device.. we could do away with all this Online Safety Act…

>>>>>>> now if only parents were given these options to indicate their child is using a device.. we could do away with all this Online Safety Act nonsense... THIS Holy shit. This is such an obvious fix. And it shuts up those surveillance state goons immediately. My God, why have we tried to summon up the ghost of 1984 when such a simple fix as this will do. Parents can lock devices into "child mode" that emits "user…

This will work... if you think this is their true motivation, and the panopticon itself isn't the true end goal.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#277

Post by TheCoelacanth »

charcircuit wrote: post #188
alex_suzuki wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side note: there’s plenty of Analytics tools that don’t require cookies. Plausible ( https://plausible.io ) is one of them, there are many others. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.

If you want to prevent a single user hitting F5 a million times from messing with your analytics you need to track IPs which requires the banner.

No, you don't need consent for that. It falls under the legitimate interest exception.

You need to disclose it in your privacy policy, you need to delete it after a reasonable retention period and you can't use those logs for other purposes like ad targeting, but you don't need a consent banner to track things that you are legitimately using for security purposes.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#278

Post by arjie »

j1elo wrote: post #258
arjie wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief no. Using websites in the UK and the EU is an exercise in pain. Every single one of them has the doorway effect where you follow a link to them and you’re faced with some Subway sandwich grade range of choices to be made and you’ve forgotten why you were there in the first place. As it stands I just hit Accept on literally everything and that’s fine for me.

You could use Consent-O-Matic https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat... It already pushes the correct "Reject" button for you on a lot of sites (not all; it works based on rule lists)

I used this for a bit and then some sites would just not work. I get it. It’s a hard thing to do and I admire it but getting blank result is far more frustrating than clicking accept each time.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#279

Post by mullingitover »

It's great they're talking about it, but they should just do like California and DO something about it.[1]

> When the law takes effect in January 2027, Californians will see new privacy options in web browsers. When enabled, these controls will automatically inform websites of their privacy preferences, helping to protect personal information from being sold to data brokers and other third parties. This means they will be able to protect their data — like their browsing history, location data, purchase history, and personal interests — across the entire internet with a single step.

[1] https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20251008_2.html

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#280

Post by SiempreViernes »

dijit wrote: post #122
alt227 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but most parents devices are for them, they just let their kid use it too.

Ah, I guess it's impossible to have a quick enable kids mode then. We should just give up and give random individuals access to everyone's camera roll.. no other way.

It is probably technically possible, but as almost twenty years hasn't been enough to implement this feature in either of the big mobile systems, it's obviously a huge practical challenge for Apple and Google.
Post reply on HN