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

381–390 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#381

Post by buzer »

dotancohen wrote: post #212
ethin wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO any contract, waver, etc., shouldn't be legally enforceable unless the signatory has actually read it. It's always seemed to me to be one hell of a pathway of abuse (in a way) to just be able to bind someone to be legally required to do anything you want, for example, by just relying on them not reading the thing they signed.

How to know if they actually read it? The signature implies that the contract has been read, understood, and accepted. I see no need for any alternative mechanism.

Well, if you presented them with list of 100 partners each with 20 page of privacy policies and they accept it within 10 seconds it should be tricky to argue that user actually read it all.

You could, for example, require that user answers very specific questions regarding 10 randomly selected partners and how exactly they can use the data ("is partner x allowed to build very detailed profile of you and target you with political adverts that are designed to manipulate you?").

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#382

Post by tremon »

crote wrote: post #350
inigyou wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only accounts for "sign this or I'll kill you" not for "you have ten seconds to make a decision or the dream vacation goes to the next person"

Some countries already have provisions for this. For example, in The Netherlands there is a legally mandated three-day period after signing the contract for purchasing a home during which the buyer can still call off the deal. The reasoning for this is that it is a seller's market, with demand far outnumbering supply. In practice it is very common these days to end up in a bidding war, and even forego any kind of "sa…

Your specific example is not intended to address buyer's remorse, but mortgage financing. After agreeing to a house sale, the buyer has three days to have their bank sign off on it. Yes, it's nice that it slightly alleviates pressure but the primary goal is to streamline house sales by making the financing details part of the finalization instead of the decision-making process.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#383

Post by kjgkjhfkjf »

Perhaps it would be simpler to make all non-essential cookies illegal. I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would want to accept non-essential cookies, other than in the course of following a path of least resistance.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#384

Post by crusty »

I've wondered for a while what value is assigned if a user ignores or dismisses (when possible) a cookie banner without actively selecting accept or decline. Anyone know?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#386

Post by xp84 »

thom wrote: post #362
xp84 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild to me that anyone thinks that would be a reasonable law (whether or not it is law, I have no clue, I don't live in UK or EU). If you made a website and you said "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or sign a name, any name you wish, in my guestbook" what business is it of the government to say "No, this random person refuses to pay or sign the book, but Thom, you have to le…

Allowing bad actors to act badly against all but the most sophisticated users is exactly where lawmakers should be stepping in. Sorry you find that controversial.

We ask more sophistication of drivers to understand the rules of right of way than we would be asking of users to hit Settings -> Privacy and Cookies and read the plain language there.

Sorry that you need the government to "help" people in this way, by forcing other people to give them free things.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#387

Post by micromacrofoot »

tempestn wrote: post #185
tappio wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many analytics solutions that dont require cookies. You can do aggregated analytics just fine without. Saving preferences does not require consent either.

My understanding is that any front-end analytics solution will require consent. You're right about explicitly set preferences. I was mixing that up with inferred preferences.

that's not true at all, plausible can be configured to require 0 consent

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#388

Post by micromacrofoot »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #106
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…

Websites need cookies. I don't get why I have to suffer through this for a few puritans who literally lose nothing in the process of this transaction but act as if Stasi is watching them.

if you're talking about cross site cookies, which are the big ones that require consent: no they don't!

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#389

Post by micromacrofoot »

IMTDb wrote: post #322
tomp wrote: post #236

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

Apparently the eu official website really needs to track you then. For what’s essentially just static content. I’ll consider dropping cookies banner when their website can work without. Stop the “do as I say not as I do” EU official website in it’s cookie banner glory: https://european-union.europa.eu/index_fr

they use third party cookies, just read their linked info on it and it's fairly clear why they have a banner

if they didn't use third party cookies they wouldn't need it

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#390

Post by micromacrofoot »

crusty wrote: post #384

I've wondered for a while what value is assigned if a user ignores or dismisses (when possible) a cookie banner without actively selecting accept or decline. Anyone know?

many of these banners don't actually work, for starters

but the proper functionality would be no cookies that require consent until consent is given

Post reply on HN