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

Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

block81.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#61

Post by dijit »

jackp96 wrote: post #30
dijit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often wonder what value it actually is. Sure, you might understand your demographics better.. if you presume that the analytics are faultless at telling you this- which they're really not. If you care about how your site is used, you don't need to set any cookies.

For my company, being able to view the user journey throughout the site in the analytics is pretty valuable. We don't care who the specific users are - but the tracking gives us an idea of how many people use the site? do they have a good experience? are they giving us money? do we have a bug somewhere we're missing? etc. All that is valuable as a business.

Back in the day we used to track user activity via a "hit id" (basically a random string) that was generated on the backend that added a "post" request to every page.

Idk if that was a good idea or not.

We depended on cookies for your cart and stuff.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#62

Post by avadodin »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #22
johannes1234321 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that for most banners the "consent" is the easy option I assume a lot. People want to get rid of the banners. However I claim the point of the bad UX is to make users angry and then have them complain about EU etc. "demanding" those. In order to weaken the regulation of tracking. If they are successful (and they are making progress) "no more cookie banners" is a lot better headlines than "more tracking"

Those are technically in violation of the GDPR since the opt out is required to be just as easy as the opt in.

In recent pop-ups, you are technically opted out by default(or at least that is how it is presented, I have not actually checked their cookie activity).

It is two clicks to confirm that choice and dismiss the pop-up versus one to accept all cookies but if you choose to interact with the site and ignore the pop-up instead, you are supposedly non-essential cookie free by default.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#63

Post by fennecfoxy »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #22
johannes1234321 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that for most banners the "consent" is the easy option I assume a lot. People want to get rid of the banners. However I claim the point of the bad UX is to make users angry and then have them complain about EU etc. "demanding" those. In order to weaken the regulation of tracking. If they are successful (and they are making progress) "no more cookie banners" is a lot better headlines than "more tracking"

Those are technically in violation of the GDPR since the opt out is required to be just as easy as the opt in.

Except there are plenty of websites that are: accept cookies (yes) (no - you must pay), which is an extreme breach of GDPR.

But GDPR is toothless and ill thought out.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#64

Post by latexr »

bradleyy wrote: post #45
latexr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the act of writing any cookie is actually covered under the law (because you're storing something on the user's computer). You're required to disclose that these cookies are in use. The page describing the law has more examples of cases where you do not need consent than the ones you do. https://commission.europa.eu/resources/europa-web-guide/desi...

Covered under the law: they are, they really are. You're required to disclose. I didn't say consent. This is precisely why I say talk to a lawyer. I appreciate the firmness of your conviction, but not reading what was explicitly stated, well.

> I appreciate the firmness of your conviction

I don’t understand how you could misread “firmness of conviction” in my comment. I made it as short, bland, and neutral as possible, on purpose. It’s just a statement of fact with a source.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#65

Post by egorfine »

Nextgrid wrote: post #57
terrycody wrote: post #37

I think if you are using Google adsense, u have to show this annoying thing to all your visitors...

But if you're including ads you're already past the point of caring about annoying your visitors.

Not at all. Ads can be displayed in a respectful fashion and not interfere with content. This is a a lost art, I know.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#66

Post by reorder9695 »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #22
johannes1234321 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that for most banners the "consent" is the easy option I assume a lot. People want to get rid of the banners. However I claim the point of the bad UX is to make users angry and then have them complain about EU etc. "demanding" those. In order to weaken the regulation of tracking. If they are successful (and they are making progress) "no more cookie banners" is a lot better headlines than "more tracking"

Those are technically in violation of the GDPR since the opt out is required to be just as easy as the opt in.

Then how is it some websites (I think the one I'm thinking of is The Sun or The Mirror) paywall the decline option? Presumably this is just illegal?

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#67

Post by egorfine »

bradleyy wrote: post #26

Disclaimer: I work on a consent product. If you're in any way something beyond a hobbyist, you should probably get legal advice about whether you need to get affirmative or implicit consent, whether you need to handle universal opt-out signals (in California, Global Privacy Control signals are now legally required to be respected), etc. Simply saying "oh I'm only tracking local cookies" might not even be enough in GD…

> Disclaimer: I work on a consent product.

Forgive me for immediately untrusting you on the matter because the reality distortion field must be strong. Cookie banners are an absolute crystal clear evil and there is absolutely no leeway for a different opinion here.

(Tracking is also an undisputed evil)

> Consent banners don't have to be awful, I promise.

False.

They absolutely have to be awful because that's the whole premise of the law. You have to get user's consent. In order to force the user to make a choice you have to make it more annoying than it is annoying to read your content while ignoring the popup. The only way to conform to the law is to make users' experience on your website miserable.

> true at a certain (small) scale, when you have hundreds of millions [...] this is impractical.

True.

However it is also impractical to actually use the consent dialog. Because all the trackers and tools that different teams are adding to the site - they have to communicate with the cookie popup somehow and no living programmer would be bothered to even think about it. Nothing good for the world comes out of presenting and respecting the cookie popup ().

Thus I see fake cookie consent popups that are actually ignoring users' choices.

() On my site I do my best to respect the user's choice and do NOT track them once they hopefully reject.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#69

Post by tessierashpool9 »

wouldn't be so sure about that in Germany, even if technically and legally true. i've heard too many times about spamigation cases where shysters send mass cease and desist letters. even if those are complete bullshit and without substance you're well advised to respond and competent at that - which means you'll have to invest in a lawyer ... yadda yadda.

Re: Most websites don't need cookie consent banners

#70

Post by krageon »

buzer wrote: post #15

"You DON’T need consent for: First-party cookies used just for your own analytics (in most cases)" They claim that, but the page they link to as the source says "You must...Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.". So what exactly makes them think that first-party analytics cookies are "strictly necessary"? The Mastodon link in the at the start of page doesn't seem to work…

Anyone that says the quote is the case doesn't know what they're talking about. For the love of god, just read the law text :(((
Post reply on HN