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

551–560 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#551

Post by cowboylowrez »

badestrand wrote: post #536
unscaled wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite this being called a "cookie banner", this is not _just_ about cookie. When you click "Accept all" you are giving your consent to any form of tracking and information sharing mentioned in the details. The site you visit may share everything they know about you with any third party they mentioned. They can even use fingerprinting (if you've agreed to it) to keep tracking you after you've deleted the cookies.

And then? What's the practical, concrete, real-life consequence for me? Nothing, not even a bit more relevant ads as these run into my adblocker anyway.

Yeah honestly I just assume sites fingerprint and track to the extent the visitors allow.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#552

Post by readread »

inigyou wrote: post #513
readread wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I abandon accounts when they get way into the hundreds of karma, generally, or a couple times I’ve let it get a ways into the thousands before destroying the password. I prefer not to become attached to it, and find the minor clout of recognition (upvoted comments that probably ought not have been…) kinda gross.

You shouldn't admit to multi-accounting. It's grounds to be shadowbanned.

Meh. I never have more than one at once, and destroy my access to old ones before creating a new one (often taking weeks or months off from posting in between). I'd be a lot more "dangerous" or "risky" if I were sitting on an old tens-of-thousands-of-karma account, which is what I'd have otherwise.

People routinely create alts just to post sensitive stuff and seem to do fine, and presumably they are keeping multiple accounts active at once.

[EDIT] I mean plus if I gave that many shits about being able to post on HN, I'd probably care a lot more about holding on to my precious karma in the first place, no?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#553

Post by account42 »

inigyou wrote: post #524
thom wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of UK sites (Reach local news stuff) now explicitly say take cookies or pay, which tbh I always thought was illegal.

They're in UK, not EU, and it has a different law.

UK GDPR is simmilar to the EU one and German news websites do the same thing in the EU.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#554

Post by dwedge »

Latitude7973 wrote: post #522
dwedge wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a term for agreeing with someone's stance but disagreeing with the person because they're so insufferable and sarcastic in the way they present the argument?

Yes, it is called tone policing.

I was under the impression that tone policing was using to attack the tone because you disagreed with the argument

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#555

Post by tcfhgj »

jebronie2 wrote: post #337
tcfhgj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisement has been on a decade-long crusade to destroy the internet.

Advertising funds large parts of the open internet. Killing ad means killing independent content creators for example. Over-regulation and censorship like "chat-control", that only benefits big players like Amazon, Meta etc. is what kills the internet.

independent of what or who?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#556

Post by jebronie2 »

tcfhgj wrote: post #555
jebronie2 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising funds large parts of the open internet. Killing ad means killing independent content creators for example. Over-regulation and censorship like "chat-control", that only benefits big players like Amazon, Meta etc. is what kills the internet.

independent of what or who?

independent of established corporations and institutions

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#557

Post by buzer »

inigyou wrote: post #530
buzer wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legitimate interest is not currently enough to read or write cookies. You need either consent or it must be "strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service." (or "sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network", but that's harder to apply to cookies)

Which part says legitimate interest doesn't apply to cookies?

"legitimate interest" is legal basis in GDPR. ePD (which governs access to cookies) does not have such legal basis, only consent and the two exceptions.

Other processing (like after value is read) can happen under GDPR if the data is personal data.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#558

Post by otterley »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #508
otterley wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not an “I didn’t read it” defense. That’s a “term is this contract is unconscionable” defense. They’re not the same thing. I was speaking strictly of the former. Also, striking an unconscionable term typically does not void the whole contract. Just the term in question.

No, it is literally ”I didn’t read the contract”. Let me guess you don’t have a law degree in Swedish law and you are just making statements on every legal system in the whole world? Just read avtalslagen paragraf 30. It says just that. And it is different from paragraf 36.

I read it. The law expressed therein appears to be consistent with typical contract law in the West, including the UK (from which US law is derived) and other European countries. I don't see any major differences. (Also, I'm not sure why you brought up paragraph 30 as that is about fraudulent inducement.)

See also https://svjt.se/svjt/1959/497 "En person borde sålunda bli bunden av ordalagen i det dokument han undertecknat utan att äga att ursäkta sig med att han icke läst igenom dokumentet."

Post reply on HN