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

RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

5snb.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#51

Post by Aeolun »

shadowgovt wrote: post #33
thrtythreeforty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm registering my elderly relatives for dmachoice.org, to prevent them from getting junk mail. These clowns create the problem and then have the audacity to charge you to be added to the opt out list. I was really skeptical about the GDPR when it was passed and I am now fully on board for an American version.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it because in practice it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit infrequently with no particular benefit to me. I'm just going to click "yes," stop asking.

The cookie banner is only there because the website in question uses non-functional cookies (e.g. targeted advertising)

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#53

Post by Aeolun »

shadowgovt wrote: post #45
blooalien wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... "it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit" ... Yeah, no. Hostile advertising companies added that cookie banner as a form of "malicious compliance" with the law purely to annoy everyone like a buncha spoil't little brats who didn't get their way, so now they're gonna make everyone suffer... If we get a similar law in the USA, you can expect to see annoyances just like it (and probably w…

And if the regulators didn't predict such compliance they should be replaced with competent actors in their jobs. That was the obvious outcome. What did people predict: site owners leaving money on the table? Who pays for operating the sites then?

All the sites that need advertising like that can just die off and leave the internet a better place.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#54

Post by dullcrisp »

SilasX wrote: post #16
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like that section ruins the joke.

Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate the message. You can still laugh at the joke with the section there, you’ll just have fewer confused people to correct, and be in one less elite club.

Sure, but the point of critical thinking club isn’t really its exclusivity. In this case if you don’t know which specific header this is parodying that’s completely understandable. But if you really think this is about computers stabbing people and can’t laugh at yourself about it when you find out that it isn’t then I don’t think we will be able to engage on this topic in a mutually rewarding manner.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#55

Post by rockskon »

shadowgovt wrote: post #44
adra wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you don't have a browser plugin that simply opts out of all cookie banners. Ultimately, the webs ites have a financial interest in malicious compliance, so you either work within the system as given or throw your hands in the air and let every and all sites rape your data.

Yes, the second one. I don't really care; it's not "my" data. It's data about me. When I walk down the street and sometime sees me go by, those aren't my photons they caught. By analogy, same with my browsing history.

You are the culmination of your life's experiences. Going by your definition, one could infer an individual has zero intrinsic ownership of any non-health data. Which I categorically object to.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#56

Post by schmidtleonard »

shadowgovt wrote: post #45
blooalien wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... "it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit" ... Yeah, no. Hostile advertising companies added that cookie banner as a form of "malicious compliance" with the law purely to annoy everyone like a buncha spoil't little brats who didn't get their way, so now they're gonna make everyone suffer... If we get a similar law in the USA, you can expect to see annoyances just like it (and probably w…

And if the regulators didn't predict such compliance they should be replaced with competent actors in their jobs. That was the obvious outcome. What did people predict: site owners leaving money on the table? Who pays for operating the sites then?

When GDPR was first going through the public circuit I remember reading the proposed laws and being pleasantly surprised to find that they specifically called out and forbade the likely workarounds, including the obnoxious banners we now see everywhere.

I would love to know what happened. Did the laws get "revised" to re-open the loophole? Was superseding legislation passed? Did the courts reject it? Are there enforcement issues?

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#57

Post by samtheprogram »

shadowgovt wrote: post #33
thrtythreeforty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm registering my elderly relatives for dmachoice.org, to prevent them from getting junk mail. These clowns create the problem and then have the audacity to charge you to be added to the opt out list. I was really skeptical about the GDPR when it was passed and I am now fully on board for an American version.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it because in practice it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit infrequently with no particular benefit to me. I'm just going to click "yes," stop asking.

I click no to all of them, but it would be really nice if the Do-Not-Track header essentially let you pick in advance — for you (0) or for me (1)

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#58

Post by Zak »

shadowgovt wrote: post #44
adra wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you don't have a browser plugin that simply opts out of all cookie banners. Ultimately, the webs ites have a financial interest in malicious compliance, so you either work within the system as given or throw your hands in the air and let every and all sites rape your data.

Yes, the second one. I don't really care; it's not "my" data. It's data about me. When I walk down the street and sometime sees me go by, those aren't my photons they caught. By analogy, same with my browsing history.

It is, however worth at least considering restrictions on continuously following a person in public places and reporting all their observed activities to a third party.

Of course there are practical limitations on that kind of physical surveillance. It's expensive, tends to attract attention, and even nation states can only do it to a few people at a time. Information technology allows it to scale to almost everyone, almost all the time, for a small fraction of a corporate budget.

Perhaps it's worth at least considering restrictions on that.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#60

Post by Aloisius »

Aeolun wrote: post #51
shadowgovt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it because in practice it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit infrequently with no particular benefit to me. I'm just going to click "yes," stop asking.

The cookie banner is only there because the website in question uses non-functional cookies (e.g. targeted advertising)

It's gotten entirely out of hand.

Most EU national government websites have cookie banners. Even the European Commission website has a cookie banner!

This should have been implemented at the browser level. Let the browser generate a nice consistent UI to nag EU users when visiting websites about accepting cookies and let the rest of us opt out.

Post reply on HN