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

Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 509 posts

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#351

Post by flukus »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #275
cameronh90 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hmm, there are features that one literally can't provide without state (cookies)." Silent cookies aren't completely banned by the GDPR/cookie laws, only cookies that aren't necessary to provide the service requested by the user. That's sort of vague, but I think mostly obvious what is intended there. It's pretty easy to operate within the spirit and letter of the law: Shopping baskets, load balancer cookies and logi…

Meanwhile, even though the _only_ user-tracking we do where I work is Google Analytics (no advertising features) (and you say your lawyers say you don't need consent for that) -- the official word on high where I work is all our websites need the stupid "i consent to cookies" banner if we use cookies. So, yeah, it's a mess. These "extra" warnings are contributing to user fatigue, I agree with troy hunt that users are…

> Meanwhile, even though the _only_ user-tracking we do where I work is Google Analytics (no advertising features) (and you say your lawyers say you don't need consent for that) -- the official word on high where I work is all our websites need the stupid "i consent to cookies" banner if we use cookies.

Google analytics feeds tracking data to google for advertising purposes and tracks you across sites, it's exactly the sort of crap the cookie warning was meant to stop.

> These "extra" warnings are contributing to user fatigue

Your need for analytics is contributing to user fatigue.

> I agree with troy hunt that users are just gonna ignore them all

So do websites putting up these silly warnings, do you actually wait for people to accept before they get their tracking cookie?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#352

Post by UncleEntity »

yellowapple wrote: post #342
wsy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? Your thought experiment (or at least your "hope" re: the "correct" answer) presupposes that suicide is wrong. Personally, I believe the only one who is allowed to dictate whether I live or die is myself; if I want to die, and have good reason to want to die (financial security for my children and grandchildren would certainl…

> If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer?

As it turns out consent[0] isn't enough in modern society (though, apparently, cannibalism is ok).

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeha...

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#353

Post by mrep »

wsy wrote: post #296
DavideNL wrote: post #128

In The Netherlands the Data Protection Authority announced this month that websites are no longer allowed to block access when people click "NO" in the cookie warning; Clicking 'no' should still allow people to view the website, but without placing any tracking cookies. Source (in Dutch): https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/nieuws/websites-moe...

We are now in the middle game of GDPR. Companies whose business model depends on tracking users essentially have now an illegal business model, because practically no user will give informed consent when they are offered the same service without consenting. So what can these - now shady - companies do? They probe the limits of the law, and try to keep their business model alive as long as they can. We need to wait an…

> So what can these - now shady - companies do?

As it looks to me, they are responding back by trying to push through articles 11 and 13 so that they can then all switch to paywalls. A paywall for a news company is practically useless as the internet currently stands as any major story 1 makes gets linked to and paraphrased by dozens of other news agencies within minutes. Why would users pay for a news website when they can get practically the same thing at a free one that did not work to come up with the story. And article 13 is to prevent 1 user who does pay for a website from copying the entire article and pasting it in a comment (I see that and archive/outline links all the time here and on reddit).

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#354

Post by flukus »

currysausage wrote: post #21

The omnipresent "Please accept our privacy policy (or leave)" is worthless cargo cult GDPR pseudo-compliance. If it's neither freely given nor informed, it's not consent under GDPR. See Art. 7: "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of persona…

There is also this in article Article 7.4 (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/)

> 4 It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.

If you prompt me to accept on every page then you must also prompt me to decline on every page, otherwise you fail this test. Hiding the option to withdraw consent in some random settings page is obviously not as easy as clicking yes when prompted.

Most sites have already created all their tracking cookies before the user even sees the opt-in form too, which isn't compliant with the GDPR or the old cookie law.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#356

Post by dageshi »

cortesoft wrote: post #259
josephg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes absolutely! Websites need to find revenue models that don’t depend on violating the privacy of their users. That stance makes a lot of sense to me.

There are tons of websites that have other revenue models. Subscriptions, referral models, etc. Shouldn't people be able to choose what currency they want to pay for something in?

It's been proven over and over again that people won't pay for content that gets successfully monetised with advertising.

You only have to see the howling every time someone posts a subscription only newspaper link on HN to see how vehemently opposed people are to paying for stuff like news.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#357

Post by wsy »

School-Cotton wrote: post #340
wsy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?

Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance.

Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: suppose you would have to design a society, but you wouldn't know into which place of this society you would be born into. You could be born as son of Bill Gates, or as daughter of the poor homeless beggar at the next corner. How would you design a society under these conditions?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#358

Post by wsy »

yellowapple wrote: post #342
wsy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? Your thought experiment (or at least your "hope" re: the "correct" answer) presupposes that suicide is wrong. Personally, I believe the only one who is allowed to dictate whether I live or die is myself; if I want to die, and have good reason to want to die (financial security for my children and grandchildren would certainl…

No, it doesn't tell anything about suicide.

It is about the question: should one be allowed to buy everything, or are there limits? To emphasize: NOT should one be allowed to sell everything.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#359

Post by UncleEntity »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #344
UncleEntity wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then EU will essentially become free of tracking networks. It might take a few years, but I think the intermediate annoyance is worth it. I don't disagree with you but I think it is more likely that these companies will just not let EU peoples use their sites at all. One BIG fine (and you know they're salivating at the prospect of getting multi-billions out of Google and/or FB) and doing business in the EU becomes…

Some will choose to adjust practices, others might choose to block the EU. If they're happy to lose that many users, as they think tracking is more important, would that be so terrible? It might even encourage some more ethical alternatives, or some real attempts to solve micropayments.

It really depends on how heavy handed they get in their enforcement actions.

Everyone knows that FB and Google are expending serious resources to be in compliance yet they will more likely than not get some large fines anyway because politics. I doubt they will ever leave the EU but other, smaller, companies will not have the resources to throw at the problem so will be effectively locked out of the EU market.

It's probably in Google's best interest to pay a couple billion euro fine (to scare off the smaller fish) in order to lock in their de facto advertising monopoly.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#360

Post by wsy »

UncleEntity wrote: post #343
wsy wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are now in the middle game of GDPR. Companies whose business model depends on tracking users essentially have now an illegal business model, because practically no user will give informed consent when they are offered the same service without consenting. So what can these - now shady - companies do? They probe the limits of the law, and try to keep their business model alive as long as they can. We need to wait an…

> Then EU will essentially become free of tracking networks. It might take a few years, but I think the intermediate annoyance is worth it. I don't disagree with you but I think it is more likely that these companies will just not let EU peoples use their sites at all. One BIG fine (and you know they're salivating at the prospect of getting multi-billions out of Google and/or FB) and doing business in the EU becomes…

That is a desirable outcome too, because copycats will then start in EU, and citizens of all countries will prefer to use their tracking-free services instead of the tracking ones.
Post reply on HN