5 ms·

The EU has already destroyed the web surfing experience for everyone, with their cookie laws. Now most sites require users to click on some banners that cover h

The EU has already destroyed the web surfing experience for everyone, with their cookie laws. Now most sites require users to click on some banners that cover half of the screen on mobile, just to get to the content, on some random site they might only visit once. Argh! I wonder what they'll do next. At some point in the future we're going to need a "new internet".

Symbiote 8y ago
The ad industry destroyed web surfing. The EU just drew attention to that. Sites without tracking cookies don't need to show a cookie banner.
- nickpp 8y ago
  Ads were never as intrusive as that damn cookie/gdpr banner. In case you didn't know, there are no sites without tracking cookies.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    There are lots of sites without tracking cookies. HN doesn't set tracking cookies, for example. The only two cookies set are the cloudflare uid and a user login cookie, both of which are hardly meant for tracking.
    - Kiro 8y ago
      What about analytics?
      - zaarn 8y ago
        As long as analytics don't produce any personal data of an individual and only aggregate data or even anonymized data, it should be perfectly fine to do without any banner. Of course, if you use Google Analytics, you can't guarantee what Google is doing, so you'll need some banner to get consent before you can perform any analytics through GA (which means you need to disable GA until the user agrees, which barely any site does anyway). If you can guarantee that the analytics won't produce or store personal data, you don't need to disable it or produce a banner.
        merijnv 8y ago
        > As long as analytics don't produce any personal data of an individual and only aggregate data or even anonymized data, it should be perfectly fine to do without any banner. Even if they did produce personal data, they very likely wouldn't need a banner. For processing personal data you merely need a lawful basis and documented processes, and asking consent is (intentionally) the least attractive lawful basis for using personal data. Consider for example the "legitimate interest" lawful basis: > processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. If you're using analytics to, say, optimise accessibility/usability of the site, then it should be fairly straight forward that the legitimate interest of both you and user (of improving the site) outweighs the "privacy harm" of processing that personal data. (Of course, using it for anything else will land you in hot water if you argue this). Even a 3rd party data processor like Google Analytics would be fine, if they're 1) GDPR compliant and 2) you have a data processing agreement with the provider. 90% of websites who don't do shady things with your personal data should never require any banner or opt-in prompt. The fact that most of the web now does is incompetence, ignorance, intentional annoyance to provoke legislation change, or a mix of these.
        jeltz 8y ago
        I think a decent portion is also because they actually do shady shit.
      - Faark 8y ago
        Do you need banners for self hosted analytics not shared with 3rd parties? I'd be fine with clicking through countless banners if that pushes the industry even just slightly in that direction.
        anonunt 8y ago
        nope.. that is the point of these laws - if you are doing decent stuff they don't really make a difference. if you are doing dodgey stuff you just have to tell people you what you are up to.. but dodgey people don't like telling people they are dodgey - hence all the moaning!
  - mverwijs 8y ago
    > Ads were never as intrusive as that damn cookie/gdpr banner. The poison slipped into your morning coffee is also less intrusive than the antidote shot into your arm with a syringe. > In case you didn't know, there are no sites without tracking cookies. And thanks to the GDPR, they might make a comeback now.
    - nickpp 8y ago
      I'm afraid in this case the antidote was worse than the disease. GDPR is here already and the solution chosen by websites is either the obnoxious banner or blocking Europe. No cookie-less I am afraid...
      - toxik 8y ago
        So ban the EU then. The market will find another venue if the service is useful enough. If a website is obnoxious about its GDPR compliancy, I just close it. Coincidentally, it has never happened on something I really needed (technical documentation, scientific journals, etc.) I don't necessarily agree with how the GDPR was created, or maybe even why, but to say it's worse than the information tyranny being built in the world today? Pft.
      - presscast 8y ago
        >I'm afraid in this case the antidote was worse than the disease. You're confusing "harmful" and "visible".
  - drb91 8y ago
    Ads are intrusive by design.
    - nickpp 8y ago
      GDPR is worse, much worse. Also by design.
      - drb91 8y ago
        I can’t say I’m bothered by a banner that gives me more control. Ads are the opposite: negative value.
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    I'm sorry, what? Did you forget the page-covering adds with fake close buttons? The hidden adds which played incredibly loud music at random intervals? The seizure-inducing flashing colours?
    - nickpp 8y ago
      And it was easy to escape them: just don't visit the offending sites. Free markets at work. There is no escape from GDPR... Bureaucracy at work.
      - yorwba 8y ago
        It's just as easy to escape GDPR banners: Just don't visit the offending sites. Free markets at work. And similar to ads, I expect automated tools to emerge that eliminate most GDPR banners by granting the minimum consent required (optionally alerting the relevant regulator if that's excessively broad) and then revoking it immediately afterwards. You can't escape bureaucracy, but you can escape the lazy companies who can't think of a better way to deal with bureaucracy than pushing it onto the user.
  - point78 8y ago
    You obviously weren't on the internet in the late 90s!
    - isostatic 8y ago
      Punch the monkey!
  - martimarkov 8y ago
    The EU version of USAToday has 0 tracking cookies. Go and check. Also check the speed!!
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      Not my favourite newspaper but the website design is great. Simple, fast, works with my default uBlock, Noscript,Privacy Badger settings! I wish more sites were like that.
      - martimarkov 8y ago
        Look at what uBlock is blocking... It's insane. I <3 it so much. :D Ghostery also doesn't report anything. :)
anonunt 8y ago
in my opinion this is a total misunderstanding of the situation: 1. people are being taken advantage of 2. law is introduced to make it harder to take advantage of people 3. scummy people still try and take advantage by trying to confuse their users and now please tell me why i should be on the scummy person side again? you don't need a cookie notification if you don't serve cookies for other people. and you don't need any GDPR notifications if you are not selling sharing or needlessly storing peoples data. you are going to websites run by scummy people, that is the problem not the law. in essence if you are not shitty to people these laws really don't have much impact.

Symbiote 8y ago

The ad industry destroyed web surfing. The EU just drew attention to that. Sites without tracking cookies don't need to show a cookie banner.

nickpp 8y ago
Ads were never as intrusive as that damn cookie/gdpr banner. In case you didn't know, there are no sites without tracking cookies.
- zaarn 8y ago
  There are lots of sites without tracking cookies. HN doesn't set tracking cookies, for example. The only two cookies set are the cloudflare uid and a user login cookie, both of which are hardly meant for tracking.
  - Kiro 8y ago
    What about analytics?
    - zaarn 8y ago
      As long as analytics don't produce any personal data of an individual and only aggregate data or even anonymized data, it should be perfectly fine to do without any banner. Of course, if you use Google Analytics, you can't guarantee what Google is doing, so you'll need some banner to get consent before you can perform any analytics through GA (which means you need to disable GA until the user agrees, which barely any site does anyway). If you can guarantee that the analytics won't produce or store personal data, you don't need to disable it or produce a banner.
      - merijnv 8y ago
        > As long as analytics don't produce any personal data of an individual and only aggregate data or even anonymized data, it should be perfectly fine to do without any banner. Even if they did produce personal data, they very likely wouldn't need a banner. For processing personal data you merely need a lawful basis and documented processes, and asking consent is (intentionally) the least attractive lawful basis for using personal data. Consider for example the "legitimate interest" lawful basis: > processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. If you're using analytics to, say, optimise accessibility/usability of the site, then it should be fairly straight forward that the legitimate interest of both you and user (of improving the site) outweighs the "privacy harm" of processing that personal data. (Of course, using it for anything else will land you in hot water if you argue this). Even a 3rd party data processor like Google Analytics would be fine, if they're 1) GDPR compliant and 2) you have a data processing agreement with the provider. 90% of websites who don't do shady things with your personal data should never require any banner or opt-in prompt. The fact that most of the web now does is incompetence, ignorance, intentional annoyance to provoke legislation change, or a mix of these.
        jeltz 8y ago
        I think a decent portion is also because they actually do shady shit.
    - Faark 8y ago
      Do you need banners for self hosted analytics not shared with 3rd parties? I'd be fine with clicking through countless banners if that pushes the industry even just slightly in that direction.
      - anonunt 8y ago
        nope.. that is the point of these laws - if you are doing decent stuff they don't really make a difference. if you are doing dodgey stuff you just have to tell people you what you are up to.. but dodgey people don't like telling people they are dodgey - hence all the moaning!
- mverwijs 8y ago
  > Ads were never as intrusive as that damn cookie/gdpr banner. The poison slipped into your morning coffee is also less intrusive than the antidote shot into your arm with a syringe. > In case you didn't know, there are no sites without tracking cookies. And thanks to the GDPR, they might make a comeback now.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    I'm afraid in this case the antidote was worse than the disease. GDPR is here already and the solution chosen by websites is either the obnoxious banner or blocking Europe. No cookie-less I am afraid...
    - toxik 8y ago
      So ban the EU then. The market will find another venue if the service is useful enough. If a website is obnoxious about its GDPR compliancy, I just close it. Coincidentally, it has never happened on something I really needed (technical documentation, scientific journals, etc.) I don't necessarily agree with how the GDPR was created, or maybe even why, but to say it's worse than the information tyranny being built in the world today? Pft.
    - presscast 8y ago
      >I'm afraid in this case the antidote was worse than the disease. You're confusing "harmful" and "visible".
- drb91 8y ago
  Ads are intrusive by design.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    GDPR is worse, much worse. Also by design.
    - drb91 8y ago
      I can’t say I’m bothered by a banner that gives me more control. Ads are the opposite: negative value.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  I'm sorry, what? Did you forget the page-covering adds with fake close buttons? The hidden adds which played incredibly loud music at random intervals? The seizure-inducing flashing colours?
  - nickpp 8y ago
    And it was easy to escape them: just don't visit the offending sites. Free markets at work. There is no escape from GDPR... Bureaucracy at work.
    - yorwba 8y ago
      It's just as easy to escape GDPR banners: Just don't visit the offending sites. Free markets at work. And similar to ads, I expect automated tools to emerge that eliminate most GDPR banners by granting the minimum consent required (optionally alerting the relevant regulator if that's excessively broad) and then revoking it immediately afterwards. You can't escape bureaucracy, but you can escape the lazy companies who can't think of a better way to deal with bureaucracy than pushing it onto the user.
- point78 8y ago
  You obviously weren't on the internet in the late 90s!
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Punch the monkey!
- martimarkov 8y ago
  The EU version of USAToday has 0 tracking cookies. Go and check. Also check the speed!!
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    Not my favourite newspaper but the website design is great. Simple, fast, works with my default uBlock, Noscript,Privacy Badger settings! I wish more sites were like that.
    - martimarkov 8y ago
      Look at what uBlock is blocking... It's insane. I <3 it so much. :D Ghostery also doesn't report anything. :)

anonunt 8y ago

in my opinion this is a total misunderstanding of the situation: 1. people are being taken advantage of 2. law is introduced to make it harder to take advantage of people 3. scummy people still try and take advantage by trying to confuse their users and now please tell me why i should be on the scummy person side again? you don't need a cookie notification if you don't serve cookies for other people. and you don't need any GDPR notifications if you are not selling sharing or needlessly storing peoples data. you are going to websites run by scummy people, that is the problem not the law. in essence if you are not shitty to people these laws really don't have much impact.