Live data from Hacker News

Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

amazingcto.com

431–440 of 662 posts

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

#431
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have /any/ examples of websites that don't have a bunch of 3rd party cookies that still have a cookie banner? Middle managers absolutely love anything with charts and graphs because it makes their decisions feel more scientific. That's why they want tracking software included on their websites. And if the law requires disclosure then a cookie popup is the solution.

My company recently announced a game, and we launched a website for the game. There's no ̶t̶h̶i̶r̶d̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶y̶ e:tracking cookies (I didn't make the site, but I do run it). Our US based legal team told us we needed a cookie banner if we were going to have visitors in the EU. I pushed back, but I lost, and ultimately it's not my fight.

Your legal team is holding the door open for the day they decide to start tracking.

They probably won't tell you that, tho.

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

#432
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business cannot survive without it essentially stealing my property (read: my data), it should not survive.

I'm sorry, what data is stolen? If I remember your name after we meet, have I stolen your data?

If it's about remember a name - b/c it was given by choice; so that's ok.

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

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about cookies. Tracking without cookies also requires consent.

See my original post. Our US legal team said that we need the banner if we have visitors from the EU, not if we're tracking them.

>Our US legal team said that we need the banner if we have visitors from the EU, not if we're tracking them.

This actually makes sense - because if you didn't have the cookie banner then some fucking weirdo would come to Hacker News and make a self righteous post about how you're "tracking residents of the EU without their consent and abusing them" (even though you're not). Instant karma. Next thing you know these weirdos and their mob are reporting you to their government and you're dealing with government inquiries and more legal expenses trying to prove your cookie-less web 1.0 site doesn't "abuse people."

The banner placates them.

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

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business cannot survive without it essentially stealing my property (read: my data), it should not survive.

This is copying, not stealing though. But I agree, taking advantage of me telling you personal info by selling it to externals is unfair without consent

Steal has a bit broader meaning, e.g. 'to steal a kiss', taking without permission.

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

#435
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…

> they are made to sign things which essentially reduce their rights...

But not as much as you might think. Consent under GDPR only applies to what you were informed of when you consented, and you're allowed to revoke consent (with prospective effect) at any time.

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

#436
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me the section of the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) or GDPR that implies the "Do Not Track" browser setting can override the need for consent banners / popups.

well, if you respect the do not track setting and therefore DO NOT TRACK, then just remove the banner. You have not obligation to tell people that you do not track because you do not track.

Are you 100% confident that you don’t do anything which could be construed as tracking by a hostile regulator? Even the official EU sites that host the relevant regulations have cookie banners, explaining (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/legal-notice/legal-notice....) that they can’t otherwise do basic analytics or interface persistence.

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

#437
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I call upon all German users of this website to write to their legislators! Obviously the German civil service is a bad actor! The German deep state must be shut down! I understand the joke you're trying to make but you clearly don't understand the relation between germans and privacy/tracking regulation to think this makes sense.

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to show the absurd position of the post I'm replying to. The less it makes sense, the better. And I only picked Germany, because it's one of the few EU countries where stuff like that is rigorously enforced. In the rest of the EU, everything unrelated to the common market and/or getting money from the EU is at best haphazardly enforced. If you want to, check out france.f…

I get no overlay on france.fr

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

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us had no real problem with the ad-supported web in the first place. I was happy with the status quo. So yes, I do blame the government as I would be fine returning to the prior state.

A site can serve ads without tracking (and the banner) - the ads just couldn't be targeted at individuals. Instead they'd have to guess what ad was appropriate ("Rolling Stone" could serve everybody ads for Taylor Swift's latest album without a banner, etc).

This means you get less money for it and can't survive due to the lesser revenue.

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

#440
post #17

Imagine a market in which companies charge a lot of hidden fees behind their customers' back, and users are not happy when they realize after the fact. The law is updated to say you are not allowed to charge the user a fee unless you tell him in advance. Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the m…

I agree with almost everything you said, except for one thing: I don't believe the euphemism "hidden fees" helps to clarify the fact that these people are taking money away from people without their knowledge or explicit consent.

We have other more precise words to describe that action. I asked ChatGPT what those could be, here's its answer:

     Q: What are some english words meaning "taking money away from people without their knowledge or explicit consent"?
     ChatGPT: There are several words and phrases in English that convey the idea of taking money away from people without their knowledge or explicit consent:

    Embezzlement: This refers to the act of dishonestly withholding assets for the purpose of theft. It often involves someone in a position of trust, such as an employee, misappropriating funds entrusted to them.

    Misappropriation: Similar to embezzlement, misappropriation involves taking something (usually money) for one's own use without permission or legal right, often in a breach of trust.

    Theft: Theft is the generic term for taking someone else's property without permission, including money.

    Fraud: Fraud involves intentional deception for personal gain, which can include financial deception or stealing.

    Swindling: This term implies deceitful behavior to cheat or defraud someone, often involving trickery or manipulation.

    Skimming: Skimming refers to the illegal practice of taking cash "off the top" of the proceeds of a business or other source of income without recording it.

    Extortion: While not always directly related to taking money without explicit consent, extortion involves obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or entity through coercion or threat.

    Pilfering: Pilfering involves stealing small amounts or petty theft, often done stealthily or without detection.

    Conning: This refers to the act of deceiving or tricking someone, often for financial gain, through manipulation or persuasion.

    Clandestine withdrawals: This phrase specifically refers to taking money from someone's account without their knowledge or consent, typically in a secretive or unauthorized manner.
Post reply on HN