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

Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

amazingcto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 662 posts

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

#581

Post by madsbuch »

IanCal wrote: post #558
soerxpso wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't require tracking of individuals. Building a house doesn't require powertools, but if your company tries to do it with handtools we'll see who goes bankrupt first.

Building a house doesn't require using cheaper but more dangerous materials either but people try to, that's why we have regulations. Analogies can be pithy but are rarely useful as an argument. Talk about reality.

analogies are even less useful when you make it to a widely regulated sector and seek anti-regulation analogies.

I am sure the construction sector is overflowing with grumpy people who feel like aspestos is the best form for isolation.

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

#582

Post by bazoom42 »

nickpp wrote: post #553
pas wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""" Cookies that do not require consent [...] or authentication cookies (when users authenticate themselves on your web site to log in in order to check online services such as their bank account). """ https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...

Again: are you a lawyer?! If not, in what quality are you advising businesses how to implement such a dangerous law? Have you seen the magnitude of the potential punishment? Will you cover my fines if you're wrong?

Note that putting a “we use cookies” banner on your website will not absolve you from GDPR fines anyway. You still need to adher to the law about informend consent, storing safely etc.

If you are worried about GDPR, by far the safest is to just not collect personal information.

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

#583

Post by diego_sandoval »

The whole premise of the law is wrong at a fundamental level.

For cookies to function, browser (acting on behalf of the user) and website have to cooperate.

First, the website sends a snippet of data to the browser, the browser then stores that data, and sends it back to the server on subsequent requests.

If the user doesn't want the cookies to function, all he has to do is tell his browser to stop sending the cookies back. The website has no way to forcefully store the cookies on the users computer and then snatch them back from their hard drive. The browser, and ultimately, the user, is the one that decides to store and send the cookies back.

But legally, website owners are held accountable for the inability of users to stop themselves from sending the cookies back. It doesn't make sense.

If the rest of the Internet worked this way, you would need to call Google on the phone and tell them that you consent to them sending you HTML before being able to load google.com on your browser.

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

#584

Post by gitaarik »

gitaarik wrote: post #579
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…

Maybe the next step would be that websites should adhere to the "Do not track" browser option, and not show the popup when people have that option on. I think that would make a lot of people very happy. The businesses that thrive on data collection not of course, but who cares about them really? People might say they pay our salaries, but if they don't thrive, other businesses will thrive, and they will pay our salaries. I rather have businesses thrive in a ethical way and have them pay our salaries. So I can only see good coming out from this.

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

#585

Post by IanCal »

tekknik wrote: post #574
yau8edq12i wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Keep them as long as is reasonable, then delete them.

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

#586

Post by yau8edq12i »

tekknik wrote: post #574
yau8edq12i wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I thought this was about DDOS and spam protection. If you want to move the goalposts, state that explicitly.

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

#587

Post by elygre »

iainmerrick wrote: post #153
elygre wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually in violation of the rules. Withholding consent is supposed to be as easy as giving consent.

Yes, I know. It’s infuriating but understandable that the regulations aren’t enforced properly.

Slowly turn the wheels of justice. We’ll get there, I think. Lawsuits take time. Regulations take time. And, as demonstrated in every GDPR-discussion anywhere: understanding takes time.

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

#588

Post by IanCal »

rchaud wrote: post #516
thejohnconway wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they did it that way because they could. It could be done a different way.

It would be like opening an independent video store when the entire market has moved to streaming. Yeah you could try it, but there are good reasons not to.

The only change needed is to let people default to no.

After all, Google and Facebook still show ads if a user doesn't consent right?

I bet they'd add that option in a heartbeat if people would leave them otherwise.

The scale of this kind of thing is ridiculous. Opening a basic news site and I'm asked to consent to my data being taken and used by 750 companies.

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

#590

Post by Xelbair »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #363
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.…

Without regulation, how do you expect this market to change?

without total removal of advertising industry? no change, they will try to find all the ways to skim around the law because they are so entrenched.

I'll take regulated market over unregulated one though.

Post reply on HN