Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by aurareturn » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 4:18 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #487

raydev wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much corporate propaganda are people consuming that legislators are seen as wholly responsible for the bad behavior and malicious compliance actions of corporations Why do I need to be "consuming corporate propaganda" when I just hate that I need to dismiss banners on every news website, when I didn't have to before the regulation? I don't care about being tracked. But now that all websites need to cover their…

Get a plugin to click that button for you, I got one and haven't seen such a banner in a really long time now.

Any iOS plugins that work?

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

#572

Post by aednichols » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 4:35 AM UTC

ambichook wrote: post #566

aednichols wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am amused that your official EU link, which contains only static documentation, asks me to choose between “all cookies” and “essential cookies”.

i think it's worth noting that those cookies keep track of whether you have filled out their feedback form and to count the number of unique visitors to the page, or cookies from third parties the website may present embeds from https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en

Yep. In other words, things that almost every website in the past 10 years does, making consent banners ubiquitous.

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

#573

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:05 AM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #562

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, you're speaking on behalf of 1 person here, not an entire country of people, and certainly not the entirety of the non-E.U. world. "We" can speak for ourselves, and don't all agree with the views you're ascribing to us. And "I" don't agree with the sort of stereotyping I'm responding to. I'm personally glad someone is doing something for my privacy here. My own government, due to regulatory capt…

Uh, what? Because the EU is forcing you to do something that you want to do anyway, you now like it? If you want cookie banner laws in your non-EU country, vote for it. I don’t want some bureacrat I didn’t vote for issuing diktats that affect how I build my business and my websites. The entire point is that we all need representatives in government.

The EU isn't forcing me or you to do anything.

The article elaborates on this point: There Is No Cookie Banner Law. Only bad website operators choosing to abuse their users with annoying consent dialogs.

Nobody in Europe is issuing "diktats", meaning citizen-supported legislation I guess, or affecting your business, unless you're trying to deal with their citizens' data. Just don't process EU citizen data and it's not an issue. Better yet, just don't track users.

In any case, your disagreement only serves to underscore that you were speaking on behalf of 1 person, not any country or countries. Otherwise, we wouldn't be disagreeing!

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

#574

Post by tekknik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:20 AM UTC

yau8edq12i wrote: post #501

throw10920 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...DDoS and spam protection?

Then store it for that purpose, don't use it for anything else, and delete it when it's not useful anymore (realistically, for these purposes, after a few minutes to an hour?).

Ok so now a criminal just needs to avoid being detected for an hour and the logs are self wiping. Sounds like a feature they’ll love!

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

#575

Post by gitaarik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:21 AM UTC

cafed00d wrote: post #183

> Companies could easily avoid any cookie banner. Just don’t track. Well, then, the EU should've just made _this_ the law. And we'd have called it the "Just don't track" law. Rant & Details: > There is no law for cookie banners. > What the EU is saying, you need my consent when you want to track me, profile me and sell my behavior off to ad companies. > or “Look, Why take a chance?” (Remo Gaggi), This kinda proves PG…

If you understand the law properly you understand you don't need a cookie banner if you don't track your users. But it is easier to not have to understand it and play safe. But then you shouldn't blame the law for making you do no research and play safe.

Most people are copy cats, and if some big websites add cookie banners, they think they also need to do it because these big sites are doing it. And then they blame the law.

If you're not a copy cat and understand your businesses, there is no need to blame the law for making you do something you don't need to.

And yeah, laws can be complicated to understand sometimes. That's with most laws. But that is why we have lawyers. But yeah lawyers are also often copy cats, it seems. At least in tech. So it's always good to keep thinking for yourself too. Don't believe everything other people are telling you. Do some investigation and research yourself. It's also not that hard.

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

#576

Post by tekknik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:27 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #552

Xelbair wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all that tracking comes down with inability to take risk on business side. Ad company wants to be 100% sure that ads are shown to humans, and pay only for those shown to humans(going deeper - to specific cohorts of humans, which in the past was approximated by content of the site showing ads). Whereas sites serving ads want to extract as much money as it is possible from advertisers based on their audience count.…

sites know their audience, they know their usual impressions, and that's how marketing saleshouses functioned for about one-two decade(s). it's much simpler for both sides, no crying about bots, etc. of course it's not great if you want to target Putin et al. ( https://www.wired.com/story/how-pentagon-learned-targeted-ad... ) ad networks can simply send out banners to sites for time slots, and that's it. do you want…

Hmm, what if people outside of yoga like health food? Or what if some people at the yoga site instead eat fried food but just have a good exercise routine?

your solution here just makes ads less valuable, which isn’t a win for advertisers or sites. if you can remove tracking, and still allow targeting, then you’ve hit gold. short of that you won’t find meaningful buy-in.

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

#577

Post by tekknik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:29 AM UTC

itishappy wrote: post #464

paulgb wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising can be more targeted (and thus higher paying) when paired with tracking.

So can car insurance, but I'd rather my agent not install a GPS without my knowledge or consent on my vehicle.

not the same, you’re paying for car insurance and they offer you a discount if you allow tracking.

most sites using tracking are providing you something for no monetary cost to you, instead by showing you targeted ads

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

#578

Post by tekknik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:36 AM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #54

tlb wrote: post #21

Part of what it means to be "good at regulation" is to anticipate the likely consequences of regulations. So a regulation that says that "businesses must now give away their products for free, unless they honk each customer's nose" will result in a lot of sore noses. Which is basically the case here. Almost all websites make money through ads, or at least keep logs of user activity to help them optimize their website…

A site can keep logs of user activity to help optimize without tracking my personal data. As soon as a company needs to track me, it's doing more than "optimizing its website"—it's using my data to sell me stuff or selling my data to third parties. And I'm glad it needs permission to do those things.

What if I want to optimize my site for certain classes of users? Say a less than abled person. What if I want to make my product easier to use with various control schemes used by a handicapped person and my product is so complex that tracking this demographic’s usage of my product is the easiest or only way? and what if there is no intent to sell your data?

I could ask permission and delay, or I could just capture the data and run experiments or A/B testing. You should also learn that nobody knows everything, and saying something isn’t required usually is just showing your own ignorance as in almost every case you’ll come across you will find at least one valid use.

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

#579

Post by gitaarik » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:39 AM UTC

aristofun wrote: post #418

Paul Graham is right still. Eu bureaucrats could have expected that many companies _need_ tracking to survive. While most people do not actually care about tracking. Not to mention that behind most companies are the people who earn their living. By honest work (advertising is not guns smuggling you know). So eventually those stupid bureaucrats didn’t really solve anything, but made life slightly worse for everyone. W…

Or you could look at it like this:

Big websites are tracking people, unknowingly to them, giving them lots of power, because information is power these days. And the sites that treat their customers fairly and honestly, ie they just want to offer you their product/service and are not interested in making a profit from your information, are not highlighted for their good intentions.

This law makes the difference clear to users. Maybe most users don't care, like most users don't care about open source, or fair trade products. But I'm personally happy that the EU cares, because I care. And I understand that most people don't care because they are ignorant about the issues and consequences. But I do find it a bit funny that a lot of people on HN don't seem to care. And I think the cookie banners are a good way to start to make people aware of these issues. It won't solve it in one go of course, but at least it starts to make people think about it in some way. And maybe there are better ways, but you gotta start somewhere.

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

#580

Post by skoocda » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 5:59 AM UTC

nedt wrote: post #486

Just imagine someone in the supermarket following you all the time, writing down all of your actions. That's pretty creepy and that's why you have to give consent first. I have no idea why anyone thought it's normal when done online. Or to extend it to the offline world just because it's technical easy. That's all the cookie banner is doing - showing how creepy many companies are and how much they don't care about yo…

If someone was running a supermarket and you came in day after day and never paid for anything, they'd get suspicious and probably follow you around all the time, too.

You don't pay for (almost) anything on the internet. Nobody does, because the requisite infrastructure doesn't even exist to allow you to pay for a page at a time. Until that changes, the creepy companies will keep finding ways to follow you around- both to earn money from advertising, and to ensure you're not abusing their systems.