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

Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

legiscope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 395 posts

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#81

Post by ryandrake »

Alupis wrote: post #58
diggan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most cookies are entirely benign. Many cookies (or something like a cookie) are required for a website to operate normally. The EU law was/is too broad - and has caused the entire world to be annoyed with useless cookie banners. Give reading the actual implementations a try. You'll quickly notice they actually thought of this. I wouldn't say it's "expertly crafted" by any means, but the banner is for a specific "cl…

You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. The EU law compels a popup for these types of services/scripts and 99% of people just click through them because t…

> Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles.

I think reasonable people can disagree about this, and if enough reasonable people think that a web site operator should not have that "right" then they should be able to pass legislation to curtail it.

As a user, I say I should have the right to control what data is collected by what company, and what they should be allowed to do with it. I should be empowered to decide what kind of data is "essential" for a company to collect about me, not the company. Reasonable people could disagree with me, too. These are not laws of physics.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#82

Post by dietr1ch »

immibis wrote: post #66
cluckindan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by hitting that ”deny” button, you have ”consented” to hundreds if not thousands of data brokers around the world processing all your personal data gathered throughout your life across all your devices. They can now freely buy your data from other brokers to enrich their profile of you. Should have unchecked those 973 legitimate interest checkboxes they hid under the ”affiliates” or ”vendors” or ”providers” or wh…

If they're doing that after you clicked Deny, the government can come down hard on them. Sadly, only the government - individuals can't sue companies for GDPR violations.

Yeah right, legalized bribery means the elected leaders have priorities other than citizens.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#83

Post by Cthulhu_ »

sccomps wrote: post #68

A lot of those hours might be saved if they mandate a “reject all cookies” button on the cookie banner.

They do already, and big companies have already been fined for not offering them, which led to some smaller parties adding them. See here [0] for a list, amongst which was Microsoft getting a $65 million fine for not having an easy opt-out on Bing, or $162 million to Google for the same thing. Noncompliance should be reported.

[0] https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-consent-fines/

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#84

Post by Alupis »

diggan wrote: post #76
Alupis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. The EU law compels a popup for these types of services/scripts and 99% of people just click through them because t…

> You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. I'm not arguing anything, read the directives and implementations yourself, then get back to me. While some might lack experience, others seem to lack reading comprehension. That's fine, we can always learn :) > Website operators have a right to study how people use their website In the EU,…

> Obviously EU directives and laws apply in EU

The EU designed these regulations to be viral and compel the world into compliance. The world does not need to comply, and largely does not. Multinational corporations with physical presence within the EU need to comply - but nobody else does, nor should they.

> read the directives and implementations yourself, then get back to me.

So we're arguing this down-thread of an article claiming our fuzzy European friends wasted nearly 600,000,000 hours last year clicking "I Accept" over and over? Seems like a well-designed regulation that's totally working super-duper well for the EU. Totally cut down on cookies!

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#85

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ben_w wrote: post #60
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shame that the blame somehow end up on the regulation, rather than the companies who are the ones who introduce this cookie banner and "massive productivity loss" You can wish upon a star that humans weren’t the way we are. In the real world, this was a predictable response to a stupid rule. (And in some cases a necessary one. For example, for websites requiring a login or reliant on ads.) > know the best way of no…

> for websites requiring a login They don't need consent for that. > reliant on ads Yes. For me, this has been eye-opening about how many different ad agencies there are snooping on my browsing history. It was bad enough when it was just the (UK) government passing a law to do that, now I've got websites with more "trusted partners" monitoring my every move than my high school had students. > This is a nothing to hid…

Saying you don’t need to worry about GDPR if you don’t keep PII is the “nothing to hide” argument. There is still a cost to demonstrating compliance that goes beyond complying.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#86

Post by deprecative »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #78
ryandrake wrote: post #55

People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…

They don't technically even need a banner per se, just respect the user's "do not track" browser setting, or put it in a settings screen, or don't use any 3rd party trackers. But a lot of businesses assume they need to ask permission for placing any cookies, which is simply not correct. Local analytics tracking is fine, it's only when the user can be tracked across multiple separate websites that they need explicit p…

Businesses are stupid. More at 11.

Yay capitalism.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#87

Post by ffsm8 »

legitster wrote: post #72
ryandrake wrote: post #55

People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…

> never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites Part of the problem is that the law didn't seek to distinguish between tame first-party cookies and the really naughty third-party cookies so the burden is equal regardless of how malicious the service is. > For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software engineer to code up a banner. This is actually not true. T…

It did though? You don't need a banner for actually legitimate use (session Cookie, settings, etc)

The things they're calling legitimate use just isn't, which is why they need banners.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#88

Post by whstl »

Alupis wrote: post #58
diggan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most cookies are entirely benign. Many cookies (or something like a cookie) are required for a website to operate normally. The EU law was/is too broad - and has caused the entire world to be annoyed with useless cookie banners. Give reading the actual implementations a try. You'll quickly notice they actually thought of this. I wouldn't say it's "expertly crafted" by any means, but the banner is for a specific "cl…

You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. The EU law compels a popup for these types of services/scripts and 99% of people just click through them because t…

> Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles.

This can be done without a cookie banner, as long as no PII is collected for the purposes of that analysis.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#89

Post by IshKebab »

ryandrake wrote: post #55

People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…

Well yeah because the "naughty things" are totally allowed. Can you blame them for trying to make money legally, and most people would say fairly morally (most people in the real world; not on HN).

I think 90% of the blame lies with the EU. They had experience from the cookie law that this would happen.

It like... say you would rather people didn't drink alcohol in pubs (because of all the scary violence it leads to). You can

1. Ban alcohol in pubs.

2. Allow alcohol in pubs.

3. Allow alcohol in pubs but only if people recite the lord's prayer before every purchase.

3. is obviously a dumb choice, yet it's the one they chose.

Post reply on HN