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

651–660 of 662 posts

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

#651

Post by nickpp »

bazoom42 wrote: post #648
nickpp wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct: implementing GDPR correctly is much, much harder and more expensive than people realise. Cookie banners are just the tip of the iceberg. A few things not allowed under GDPR: 1. Analytics 2. Third-party resources like fonts or JS libraries 3. CDNs 4. DDOS protection services And I am sure I am missing many more. I am not a lawyer, but I worked with a few.

Of course you can use third-party resources like fonts or JS libraries. What you can’t do is trick the client to download something from a third-party source which then spy on the customer.

[dead]

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

#652

Post by mercenario »

denton-scratch wrote: post #295
KingOfCoders wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(author here) I'm a fan of second-order thinking and unintended consequences, so I'm with you there. How would you frame a "don't track people without consent" without unintended consequences? The article tries to make the point (perhaps fails), that companies do this intentionally to get the "consent" of people against their will, therefor running the tight line of breaking the law without breaking it.

> How would you frame a "don't track people without consent" without unintended consequences? Drop the consent requirement? I.e. just don't track people. No third-party cookies, first-party only, and only for the correct operation of the site. It's not the cookies that people object to, it's the tracking. Tracking provides no benefits to visitors. If there were no tracking risk, there would be no need to require cons…

> Drop the consent requirement?

Don't ask users what they want. Let me, denton-scratch, decide for all of them. Wow, what a brilliant idea!

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

#653

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

tekknik wrote: post #576
pas wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> your solution here just makes ads less valuable, which isn’t a win for advertisers or sites

It sounds like that's a natural outcome of the point of the law in the first place: people felt that, for too long, tracking has extracted too much value from them without their consent.

Whether a website "buys in" to complying with the law is of course a risk analysis they can conduct for themselves. Neither advertisers nor sites are entitled to a "win" here.

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

#654

Post by IanCal »

tekknik wrote: post #642
IanCal wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Reasonable means different things in different countries and industries. Some require 14 years of retention.

Absolutely, and gdpr doesn't get in the way of those legal obligations. The point is that you can do what is necessary or expected to provide the service without consent, and you can do much more with consent.

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

#655

Post by aristofun »

gitaarik wrote: post #635
aristofun wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize that faang companies know everything about you already? With or without cookies. Did you know that the bigger company is the easier it is for it to workaround those silly cookies limitations bureaucrats impose? Did you look out the window recently? Did you notice any positive political changes after these stupid regulations took place? What other evidence you need to admit it was a dumb and useless reg…

It's mostly about making people aware. And it does have some effect. Maybe not much, but you have to start somewhere. Imagine a group of people living in a big house that hasn't been maintained and cleaned in a long time. Then someone starts cleaning a little window. And someone says: look at the rest of the house, do you see any change? Well of course not, but you have to start somewhere. And maybe we didn't even us…

what a bunch of nonsense, what a ridiculous excuse for a terrible action - "start somewhere" and "raise awareness"

Following this logic - why don't you cut out few buttons on your keyboard?

To raise awareness about online gaming and pron addiction.

It's not much, but you have to start somewhere, right?

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

#656

Post by gitaarik »

aristofun wrote: post #655
gitaarik wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly about making people aware. And it does have some effect. Maybe not much, but you have to start somewhere. Imagine a group of people living in a big house that hasn't been maintained and cleaned in a long time. Then someone starts cleaning a little window. And someone says: look at the rest of the house, do you see any change? Well of course not, but you have to start somewhere. And maybe we didn't even us…

what a bunch of nonsense, what a ridiculous excuse for a terrible action - "start somewhere" and "raise awareness" Following this logic - why don't you cut out few buttons on your keyboard? To raise awareness about online gaming and pron addiction. It's not much, but you have to start somewhere, right?

I don't see how removing buttons from your keyboard is helping with those issues. I do see how making people aware about the use of tracking cookies will help with raising awareness about the use of tracking cookies.

I understand you see it as an inconvenience, making the UX worse. But it's not about that, the cookie banners actually provide you information about what they use the cookies for. Which 3rd parties they share it with. It is about raising awareness.

And yeah, you have to start somewhere. If you don't do anything, nothing will change, and deterioration continues.

You do understand that the ones in control of this data have a lot of power. Do you wish to change it or are you satisfied with the situation? If you have a better idea on how to deal with this issue, that could be a helpful contribution.

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

#657

Post by pas »

tekknik wrote: post #645
pas wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad networks can offer to optimize the impressions, help to with targeting. After all the current implicit user profiling and targeting is already not a 100%. Many people use adblockers, many devices are used by more than one user, etc. (In this day and age we are still baffled how Amazon/Google/whatever advertises us - for days - the same fucking thing we just purchased yesterday. Of course, because based on their mo…

I’ll be honest that’s too long of a post to read and a cursory reading didn’t really shed any light on your point of view. Many of us are old enough to remember untargeted ads, and pretty much all anybody saw at the time as an ad for cialis/viagra. 14 year old girls, 25 year old men, it didn’t matter, clearly you’re in the market for ED meds. this is a regression and i’ll take anonymized profile data over seeing comp…

> this is a regression and i’ll take anonymized profile data over seeing completely irrelevant ads.

exactly. let the user decide. that's why it's out to be opt-in/out.

> you seem to be detached from reality.

I'm simply stating factors that are not insignificant compared to the difference we are talking about.

the policy discussion starts with cost-benefit analysis of "implicit profile-based ads" vs "alternative ads", and I'm simply stating that there are already many factors that ad networks consider.

FB/Meta rolled out Advantage+, which is a machine-learning-based full campaign optimization system. (The advertiser uploads many banners, and Meta tries all of them for various target groups, and learns which one to show for which users.) ... and it did all this because of Apple's ATT (app tracking transparency)

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

#658

Post by popcorncowboy »

throw10920 wrote: post #414
popcorncowboy wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm very clearly not conflating the legislature and judiciary, as evidenced by the fact that I differentiated between them in my comment. > a lack of resourcing to quickly enforce laws makes those laws bad Is true, and you haven't refuted it, only used the emotionally manipulative phrase "bad faith argument".

Your entire argument is conflation.

You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them.

Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.

There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases. Perhaps that is your preferred order of the world.

But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence. Suggesting otherwise is to lean into autocracy, whatever your motives.

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

#659

Post by throw10920 »

popcorncowboy wrote: post #658
throw10920 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very clearly not conflating the legislature and judiciary, as evidenced by the fact that I differentiated between them in my comment. > a lack of resourcing to quickly enforce laws makes those laws bad Is true, and you haven't refuted it, only used the emotionally manipulative phrase "bad faith argument".

Your entire argument is conflation. You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them. Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place. There are countless examples of legislat…

> The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them

This is wildly incorrect. The point is not separation - that is obviously stupid and pointless. The point is maintaining checks and balances on the power of the government, and one of the (many) mechanisms is through separation.

> Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.

Again, incorrect, because the principle is limiting power, not separation of powers test for its own sake. Not passing laws that can't be correctly enforced is not a violation of that goal or the strategy of separation of powers.

> There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases.

Nowhere did I say that or does my argument imply or necessitate that. Being unable to enforce a law due to lack of resources is categorically different than political pressure. You're intentionally misinterpreting my words

> But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence.

This is your own projection of what a "modern", "principled" government should look like - which, as stated before, is obviously stupid and pointless. Separation is not a virtue - it's a means to an end. You may want to consider reading the US Constitution to see this in action.

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

#660

Post by popcorncowboy »

throw10920 wrote: post #659
popcorncowboy wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire argument is conflation. You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them. Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place. There are countless examples of legislat…

> The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them This is wildly incorrect. The point is not separation - that is obviously stupid and pointless. The point is maintaining checks and balances on the power of the government, and one of the (many) mechanisms is through separation. > Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subj…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN