Live data from Hacker News

Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

amazingcto.com

351–360 of 662 posts

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#351
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law. The reality is that I (a…

The reality is that most people don't want to be tracked: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/facebook-adverti...

The problem is that most people don't want to pay for any of the internet services they use either.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#352
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. How much corporate propaganda are people consuming that legislators are seen as wholly responsible for the bad behavior and malicious compliance actions of corporations? What does it say about the relationship between businesses and consumers that the first response to this bad behavior is to shout "look what you made them do!" Seemingly it is everyone's fault except the bad actors themselves.

If it only were that simple. When the GDPR came out, a lot of confusion and misunderstanding ensued. Not only regarding the damn cookie banner. Even totally legitimate health-care providers started to collect signatures to be on the safe side. I still rememeber receiving a basic GDPR training where we were told that opt-out/signing is only necessary if the entity is planning to do weird stuff with your data. IOW, if…

I kinda hate saying this, but Microsoft (or at least github) got it right in a week. Some OSS publishers also got it right, like nexedi, and some i'm sightly upset with (gitlab) but it is true that for the commercial internet it seems to be invasive. I do not use the commercial internet much, and like any person with greasemonkey, i took a rainy afternoon to remove the most annoying banners (i think now i use a plugin that does it for me).

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#353
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately a non-negligible number of people in tech also have libertarian leanings Why is this unfortunate? Because you don't agree with us? The "they would agree with me if they were smarter" trope is tired and gets us nowhere.

> Why is this unfortunate? GP answered your question, for some reason you decided to cut the quote right before the answer. Here is the part that is missing from your quote which answers your question: '[...]with a default “gubmint bad!” position'

Some people have a default “gubmint gud business bad” position and assume that disagreement is only possible if you’re a brainwashed bootlicker.

I say that’s unfortunate

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#354
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost all websites make money through ads, Doesn't require tracking of individuals. > or at least keep logs of user activity to help them optimize their website Doesn't require tracking of individuals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't but IP addresses are considered to be "personal information" and therefore collecting them is "tracking" under the GDPR?

What else would you need my IP address for?

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#355
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just been in Europe last week (I live in US): you have no idea what a nightmare internet is in Europe. You are only seeing a side effect here.

> what a nightmare internet is in Europe I live in Europe; I don't experience this "nightmare". Would you care to expand?

Sure. The nightmare is that every single time you open the browser on a website you have to go through the data tracking preference for that website. It's a lot of work to avoid being tracked (companies are obviously using dark patterns there) and when you do it 20 times a day it gets frustrating quickly and collectively a big waste of human time.

Now I am not saying the US doesn't have a problem. They just don't have GDPR and most website don't ask you for any permission to track you. So the experience is generally smoother (with the occasional tracking popup).

Ideally there should be a way for me to broadcast my willingness to share my data and not allow dark patterns to try to change my opinion. But the GDPR does not cover that and allows websites to drive you crazy until you click "YES, Track me"

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#356
post #107
post #70

>, Paul Graham came up with the thought, that the EU forces companies to have cookie banners. There is no law for cookie banners. [...] Companies could easily avoid any cookie banner. Just don’t track. KingOfCoders/amazingcto, of course you are technically correct but Paul Graham wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Instead, you have to interpret his complaint with the lens of game theory . I.e. The Law of Uni…

Doesn't that argument work both ways? If you interpret the EU's regulation with the "lens of game theory", it is an unintended consequence of aggressive corporate data collection. Not sure why it makes sense to complain about the EU and not the companies.

Of course not. Only titans of industry and the landed gentry of the executive class are allowed to "move fast and break things", "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" and take "imperfect action rather than perfect action."

It's more morally permissible for corporate decision makers to install a global surveillance complex than for civil servants to attempt to regulate it.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#357
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this is strictly accurate. There’s nothing about cookies themselves that makes them a problem. It’s the way they are used. Needing to inform people you are using cookies for sessions is like needing to inform people you are using a fork to eat. The problem is that some people are using the fork to stab people, so now we require everyone to say how they’re going to use it in advance. Instead of just proh…

You don’t need to inform people you are using cookies. It is not about cookies.

As long as those cookies are only used for making the core functionality of the website work (i.e. login sessions, user preferences)

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#358
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that companies are doing that says more about the bad law than the companies which is exactly Paul Graham's point.

[flagged]

> Please stop defending the behavior of shitty companies. At the very least, I hope you're getting paid for these comments.

Please don't do this on HN.

Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

#359
I don't know exactly what Paul was referring to when he wrote his tweet, but my own interpretation of the problem is that the EU has basically transferred the responsibility entirely over to the end user, which is a responsibility that we know people are not capable of handling.

Sure, you can say that websites have the option of "Just don't track", but realistically we know that that will never happen. Particularly since a lot of websites are actually tracking the user for the purpose of making the experience better (such as remembering settings, recent search terms, etc...), rather than tracking for the purpose of selling data to advertisers. But, from the user's point of view, they won't know what they have agreed to anyways. So essentially we get to a scenario where 99% of the websites have annoying cookie banners, when we already know that 99% of users won't read the terms anyways...

If the EU was good at regulating things, they would come up with a solution which puts the responsibility primarily on the website. One example of this could be if EU defines like ~5 different "data ratings", with pre-defined conditions of what sort of data was allowed to be tracked for each rating. Then the websites are responsible for choosing the rating that corresponds to their level of data gathering, and if they report it incorrectly, the EU could fine them.

The result of this is that when a user visits a website, you can quickly see a "badge" in the browser which lets you know what sort of tracking this page has (thus the user learn what each rating means, and get a better understanding of what they agree to). This is very similar to what Apple already does in the App Store in the "Data Linked To You" section for each app.

Post reply on HN