Live data from Hacker News

Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

jfagerberg.me

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#51
post #4

This whole cookie banner situation is a disaster. Companies know that you will not accept their cookies and have decided to use the "legitimate interest" loop hole. So if you select reject all cookie, the legitimate interest ones are not rejected unless you go an uncheck them manually. https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1cn306c/... Here is an example of what I am talking about, I think some companies…

The "definitely not heavily lobbied" loophole that lets EU claim good press for most of the law while leaving the backdoor wide open

It's not a loophole. Strict necessity is well defined, and per the opinion quoted in the fine article:

> While [cookie-based analytics] are often considered as a ‘strictly necessary’ tool for website operators, they are not strictly necessary to provide a functionality explicitly requested by the user […]. As a consequence, these cookies do not fall under the [exemption].

Companies can still do it illegally of course, and many do, but there is no law that can stop people from doing illegal things.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#52
post #35
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can collect anything without limits as long as you don’t associate this data with identification data / profiles. An amount of visitors isn’t creating any privacy concern. That would be another situation if you stored individual completion rates associated with, say, an IP or worse, an user account. You would still technically be able to do it but not without clear consent from the user.

This is wrong, read the article. Your answer aligns with GDPR, but cookie banners come from the ePrivacy directive. The author is one of the few to describe it well.

MartijnHols is talking about using javascript, not cookies (or similar mechanisms). It is possible to use JS without cookies. If they're not using cookies, nor fingerprinting, nor storing PII, or anything else that breaks the spirit of the laws then it doesn't need a cookie banner, but under some jurisdictions you need disclosure about the potential data aggregation (even if it's just "increment a counter") to be in your privacy policy.

Collecting non-personalized aggregate data without any tracking mechanisms (cookies, fingerprinting, PII storage) is mostly fine in jurisdictions that implement GDPR and ePrivacy, as long as the usage also aligns with that (example: you also can't cheat and use AI or whatever to break privacy post-facto).

"Everything needs cookie banners" is a take as bad as "Nothing needs cookie banners".

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#53
post #24

I'm sorry, what? Is this actually arguing that consent is needed to log the user agent string? Has this person studied law?

The user agent string by itself is not PII. The user agent string in context can be PII.

Here's an example you might be familiar with from a business setting: sometimes you can't disclose the identity of certain customers but you really want to talk about them as a reference when selling your product. So instead of "Microsoft" you might say "a big company from Redmond". You're not identifying which company you are talking about but you're providing enough context clues to narrow it down to the point where the most likely company you might be referring to is Microsoft. If you then go on to say something about "the big company from Redmond", that information will clearly be tied to Microsoft (or a very small group of companies where Microsoft is the most likely one) and you might be violating the non-disclosure agreement without ever having explicitly named the customer.

Back in the day, a user agent string would only tell you the OS and browser, with version numbers often only narrowing it down to maybe a year or so. But with browser and OS releases becoming so frequent, the exact version numbers alone will already often vary even between users using "the same" browser and OS and additionally it may sometimes contain information about plugins and other installed software. Alone this is unlikely to narrow it down enough to qualify as "personally identifiable" but that depends entirely on what else you store alongside it (and things like timestamps are definitely additional important context clues).

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#54
post #4

This whole cookie banner situation is a disaster. Companies know that you will not accept their cookies and have decided to use the "legitimate interest" loop hole. So if you select reject all cookie, the legitimate interest ones are not rejected unless you go an uncheck them manually. https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1cn306c/... Here is an example of what I am talking about, I think some companies…

This is not a loop hole. Claiming that something is legitimate interest while it isn't is just good old breaking the law.

Just because computer is able to do something, doesn't make it legal.

Also: just because me or a lawyer says it's legal or illegal, doesn't automatically make it. This sort of thing needs to go to court.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#55
post #8

Do you really need analytics that much? Enjoy my cookie and analytics free website: https://www.ZoneHero.io I had to resist a lot of temptations, but hey, no banners!

Some sites need them, or they would not exist. A page with ads, where the advertisers what to know, at mleast, how many times their ad was displayed. They have an aproximation of this number for printed press, for TV, for the radio. I have a lot of sites that are also banner free, but they are paid with other means (usually grants). But when the money ends, the sites go down. The sad thing with analytics is that the…

If you're collecting the data for fraud prevention, that would be covered by "legitimate interest" which does not require consent.

The problem with ads is that they don't want to only do fraud prevention, they also want to do deep behavioral analytics and targeting. You can't do that with data you collected for the purpose of fraud prevention because it's a different purpose altogether.

> The sad thing with analytics is that the dreadful banner makes it look like my site that only sets a cookie to know what is an unique visitor looks the same than other site that collects hundreds of data variables and then sell the data to hundreds of third parts, making the data sharing a business in itself.

If your cookie only exists to identify visitors across requests for purposes that meet the definition of legitimate interest or any other legal basis for a mechanism than consent, you do not need a "banner" (really: consent form). You don't even need a notice, just a privacy policy explaining it. An example for this are session cookies for logins - cookies for things like dark mode are slightly different but you don't have to frontload the consent request for that.

We don't shove a consent form in people's faces when we first talk to them just because of all the things we might need their consent for later in the day. I'm not sure why so many of us think we need to do this for websites that don't immediately require that consent to do something with it. Especially when consent can be withdrawn (or given) at any time.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#56
post #4

This whole cookie banner situation is a disaster. Companies know that you will not accept their cookies and have decided to use the "legitimate interest" loop hole. So if you select reject all cookie, the legitimate interest ones are not rejected unless you go an uncheck them manually. https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1cn306c/... Here is an example of what I am talking about, I think some companies…

I regret to inform you that solutions like Ad Naseum are snake oil. Bot-clicks and LLM networks are already pretty pervasive clickers of ads. Most ad networks already have ways of filtering out noisy clicks. And anyone dumping real money into ads will be smart enough to tie their ROI to conversion events, not clicks.

Perhaps, but bot clicks and LLM networks are not domestic users with off-the-shelf browsers doing other legitimate activities in a website.

Also: the ad networks don't care about your ROI, they'll still charge if they don't catch the fraud.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#57
post #50

I’m so tired of the popups. YOY DON’T NEED A POPUP TO USE COOKIES! Just stop tracking people across sites and you’re good. Cookies, localstorage or fingerprinting makes no difference. The distinction is whether you track users or not. You are allowed to use cookies to your heart’s content, as long as the cookie is necessary for the functionality of your site, like a session id, or a shopping cart id. > [You must] Rec…

Yes, yes, yes.

By the way: this also aligns with the implementations of the ePrivacy directive done by individual countries.

Just go and read individual laws of each country, but the myth that "even login and shopping cart cookies need consent" is just a myth. It would be impossible to comply to both ePrivacy and GDPR if this was the case.

As much as the cookie banner industry is trying to tell you, you don't need TrustArc, OneTrust or other shady products on every website. Just don't do shady shit. First because you don't need it, second because, as you said, these products are almost always doing some illegal shit.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#59
post #52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong, read the article. Your answer aligns with GDPR, but cookie banners come from the ePrivacy directive. The author is one of the few to describe it well.

MartijnHols is talking about using javascript, not cookies (or similar mechanisms). It is possible to use JS without cookies. If they're not using cookies, nor fingerprinting, nor storing PII, or anything else that breaks the spirit of the laws then it doesn't need a cookie banner, but under some jurisdictions you need disclosure about the potential data aggregation (even if it's just "increment a counter") to be in…

I was responding to this:

> You can collect anything without limits as long as you don’t associate this data with identification data / profiles.

That's completely wrong, the whole article is about the issue of reading data from the visitors device and needing a cookie banner for that. So you can't "collect anything without limits" in fact you can't collect any data from the visitor device. Which leaves a very narrow option of counting without using things from the device.

Re: Do cookie-free analytics need cookie banners?

#60
post #44

What if I only use the first two parts of the IPv4 address and nothing else. Does that still require banners?

As with all legal questions (IANAL): it depends. Can you demonstrate legitimate interest for "using" those parts of the IPv4 address? If yes, then no. The IPv4 address combined with a timestamp identifies the typical person almost uniquely. Tracking this data over time allows narrowing it down further. This makes it PII for all intents and purposes. Anonymizing an IP adress by truncating it is a form of processing. S…

Thanks. It's a bit unfortunate. I essentially only want to keep a visitor count. So I have to show the the same banner (at least to be on the cautious side) as the guy who is sharing my data with their 732 "partners"? :-/

Somewhere in the original article it was mentioned that even hashing is not enough to make data non-PII. I assume then that's also out of questions?

Post reply on HN