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

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

legiscope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 395 posts

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

#291

Post by account42 »

randomdata wrote: post #261
pickledoyster wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DNT does not provide informed consent. It may, if set to not track, imply denial, but the reverse is not true. If DNT is accepting or unset, the site needs to fall back to the banner to get consent. And at that point you may as well prompt everyone with the banner instead of complicating the codebase with extra logic for a DNT edge case.

I doubt there would be any concerns with "complicating the codebase" (really?) if there was a Yes-Track header that gave consent but no negative signal.

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

#292

Post by dspillett »

indulona wrote: post #240

we have fought 20 years to get rid of popups, then EU comes in and shits all over the internet.

Nope. Companies, especially ad-tech and other stalkers and the sites/apps who use their services, are doing the shitting.

Nothing in the relevant regulations, from the EU, California, or anywhere else, in any way mandates the inconvenience that these companies are creating for you.

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

#293

Post by dspillett »

lysace wrote: post #143
diggan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general: Southern+Central EU wants to build a new USA. Northern states meanwhile want to reduce the power of the EU. A common market is really the only thing we want. As someone from the north (specifically Sweden) who now lives in the south (specifically Spain), I'm not sure there is majority in either places, either directions, to state this with confidence. Lots of swedes are happy with EU and wants to make i…

It's weird that you're fixated on that, but yes, I am Swedish and live in Sweden.

It's weird that you think it is weird for someone replying to your post to “fixate” on what is most of its relevant content.

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

#294

Post by shadowgovt »

uniqueuid wrote: post #226

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…

Which is fine, but as an individual I'd just rather auto-click "accept all" and go on with my life. Be nice if that could be done without the button.

If I don't want to be informed, there should be a way for me to signal my willingness to participate in uninformed consent.

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

#295

Post by dspillett »

_qua wrote: post #75

I don't even have the words to express how little I care if companies serve me targeted ads with cookies. On the other hand I absolutely despise what the average visit to website with a cookie banner has become.

Blame the companies, not the regulations. A significant part of their reasoning behind byzantine stalking permissions banners is that they are deliberately inconveniencing people like you who don't care, so you can be weaponised against those of us who do in discussions about the regulations and related privacy matters.

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

#296

Post by account42 »

Earw0rm wrote: post #218
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only way to permanently rid yourself of information vampires.

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

#297

Post by secondcoming »

pickledoyster wrote: post #254
uniqueuid wrote: post #226

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.

There is a new signal, GPC, that does the same thing and has been blessed by the advertising industry.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Se...

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

#298

Post by XCSme »

ffsm8 wrote: post #156
legitster wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room is that almost no one wants to host website without at least some sort of website analytics service, which does not fall under legitimate use. So that's why even a small blog is going to have a cookie banner. There are some analytics companies out there that advertise cookieless analytics, but they are either a) too simple for enterprise or b) a much, much worse privacy and compliance risk.

Even this can be done without a banner, as long as these analytics do not contain any way to link them to individuals/specific users It's admittedly sound advice to create a banner for such a usecase however, as sanitizing all user data from these events is hard to guarantee, and you'd have to do just that to keep it legal

I think it's impossible to be 100% legal.

Many times, the user IP, which is considered PII, is stored in various servers/routers log that you have no access to...

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

#299

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

satokausi wrote: post #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…

There are a few assumptions there that make me scratch my head

1. the general 'utility' of informing users about cookies (or giving them the opportunity) and getting 'consent' is completely ignored. 2. The time spent is assumed to be 'working' productive time, not leisure time 3. They ignore the existence of tools that automate these (auto accept/reject)

At this point, why not calculate the 'economic costs' of every activity we do outside of work? I imagine reading and watching TV and movies would have massive productivity hits...

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

#300

Post by Ntrails »

randomdata wrote: post #272
ben_w wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm. For existing privacy options — location, microphone, camera — Safari on iOS has the options of "ask"/"deny"/"allow". I wouldn't be surprised by legislation for a Do Not Track option in DMA designed Gatekeepers' browsers, defaulting to "ask", where all three options must be handled accordingly by websites. "Ask" would also have to be the default behaviour when no preference is transmitted.

Again, as the law in question requires informed consent, "allow" and "ask" end up being the same thing. A new DNT law as you propose would contradict the other law of which we speak.

Informed generalised denial could be accepted and no cookie banner shown surely?

In much the same way no banner is required if no cookie is being set.

Post reply on HN