9 ms·

Care to elaborate on that? I rather like it. As a developer it's a pain, but as a citizen I find it to be a step in the right direction.

by wlll 6y ago

mikrosom 6y ago
I'd also be interested in an elaboration. It isn't much about the violation of the law itself but the violation of privacy; why do I have linkedin.com, spiceworks.com, techtarget.com, godknowswhat.com suspiciously dumping cookies in my browser?
- knorker 6y ago
  And that has changed now? (more text here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028296)
- jeofken 6y ago
  Keeping cookies is voluntary - the HTTP header can only ask if you wish to keep it. Most popular user agents just keep all cookies by default, but it’s by no means given.
lkbm 6y ago
I think there's some merit to "this site uses cookies to track you as you visit different sites". There's none whatsoever to "this site uses cookies to remember your login information". The law seems to make no distinction. As a user, I view every cookie notice as pointless and annoying -- obviously you use cookies, and obviously I'm okay with it. If the notice were specifically about cross-site tracking, that would be a meaningful notice, and opting out would make sense. Session cookies, though? You're warning me about session cookies? If I could set a blanket "I accept cookies" in my browser settings and have those notices all go away,. I would in a heartbeat. And, in fact, I DO have a blanket "I accept cookies" setting in my browser. Sadly, I'm still forced to manually opt-in on each stupid website. Ideally, we would distinguish between different "types" of cookies (and I believe the law requires you do this), and we would have settings specifically for these in browsers (which we sort of do in a limited fashion), and we would simply make it a setting defaulted to "ask". show notice only if the user has manually changed the setting from "ask" to "accept" for the types of cookies used on a site. Boom, useful and non-annoying cookie notices. Until we do that, it's a bad system, and a useless law.
- yladiz 6y ago
  > The law seems to make no distinction. What do you mean by this? The law does make a distinction between essential and nonessential cookies (cookies that are necessary for the function of the website/app, i.e. session cookies, and not necessary, i.e. analytics IDs) and requires you to get consent for nonessential cookies, while allowing essential cookies. If a website doesn't set any nonessential cookies then it doesn't need to ask for consent.
  - lkbm 6y ago
    Good point. I'm certainly not an expert on the law -- I did some quick googling, but not a lot. Session cookies, e.g. are fine. As best I can tell, "remember me" / "remember my email" checkboxes still do require a banner, though I'm not sure. Preference cookies in general seem to. That strikes me as silly. Facebook's tracking me on thousands of unrelated websites; Wikipedia is remembering that I X'd out the donation banner last week and don't want to be shown it again[0]. These are entirely different use-cases with entirely different privacy implications. As far as I can tell, both require a banner, and while the banner allegedly has (or links to) details about which is occurring, I've never, ever paid enough attention to those banners to see those details. Part of this mess may be due to the fact that our client software is dominated by the largest advertiser, but I'd prefer regulations that address that by demanding privacy-respecting settings and setting defaults, not by showing me banners that I've never found useful. I use uBlock Origin and Firefox' tracking protection. I don't use the consent banners. I think most people automatically click "yes" on those, yet given the option to block tracking cookies en masse, would enable that option. [0] Okay, seems as if Wikipedia ISN'T storing that info, but I wish they did.
    - ajnin 6y ago
      The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.
burke 6y ago
In my opinion, it’s solving the problem at the wrong level. If you, as a government, want to coerce someone into solving this problem, it should be forcing browser vendors to provide more visibility into and control over (especially third-party) cookies. Instead, we have a banner you have to interact with as the price to visit pretty much any website.
- rafram 6y ago
  I don’t know, I think the banner is a pain but it is absolutely the responsibility of web developers to allow user choice in tracking. Cookies don’t have to be third-party to be harmful. If the roads are bad, we need to fix the roads, not just tell everyone to drive better cars.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    I mean sure, but technically you already have that choice. It's entirely up to you whether to keep, discard or modify cookies. Your user agent is doing a bad job of managing this for you.
    - wlll 6y ago
      GDPR isn't a cookie law, it's a data privacy law. Cookies aren't the problem, it's what people are doing with the data that's the issue. You can track people with all sorts of other means other than cookies, you would also need to get people's permission to do this.
      - contravariant 6y ago
        We were specifically discussing the cookie banners though.
        wlll 6y ago
        Yes, but in the context of GDPR, which doesn't really go into detail about cookies, "…throughout its’ 88 pages, it only mentions cookies directly once" - https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/. The issue is handling of PII, tracking users and the hoops companies are jumping through to try to trick users into agreeing to allow this. In reality forcing users to select through the myriad of cookies that many sites set isn't practical, and doesn't get round the fact that you still would have to "Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies." A better technical solution would be to enforce that web applications respect a client header that specifies the level of cookies the client will allow (see https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/). An even better solution to this would be to stop the invasive tracking and profiling of users that has brought us to this point at all.
knorker 6y ago
Back in the 90s we had cookie confirmation things. A browser called konqueror even had it on by default. Every time a server tried to set a cookie you got a chance to say no, etc… For users it was as awful then as the experience is now. The people who made this law seemed to be under the impression that sites would react by removing cookies. This is naive or plain stupid. Instead what we have now is that every single site has a popup saying "Lorem ipsum" (nobody reads this), and you have to click "fuck off" to get to the content. I would LIKE to say that all this law does is annoy people. I would like that, but no. Instead what it does is train literally billions of people to click "fuck off" (actual text is usually something like "I agree", but what the user means is "fuck off, I'm trying to read the article"), without reading what the box says. ACTUAL security problems now, or ACTUAL choices, now cannot be warned about. Because if users were not good at reading actual meaningful warnings before, they sure as hell don't read them now. So not only is this law (1) not helping, people still have cookies. It's also (2) annoying absolutely everyone every day, with up to four "fuck off" buttons users need to click per page load, and (3) actively hurting via huge externalities, as described above. Oh, and for extra bonus on a weekly basis I run into websites that chose to simply block users from EU IPs, presumably after a ROI calculation. Thanks, EU. Are you in Europe?
- wlll 6y ago
  > Back in the 90s we had cookie confirmation things. A browser called konqueror even had it on by default. Every time a server tried to set a cookie you got a chance to say no, etc… > > For users it was as awful then as the experience is now. Yes, I remember. Back in the 90s you could always choose another browser that didn't do that, and we didn't yet have the rampant data collection and exploitation that we have seen since. Back in the 90s it was a novel thing when $known_company got a website at all. In the intervening years a huge amount of our life and identity has moved online. > The people who made this law seemed to be under the impression that sites would react by removing cookies. This is naive or plain stupid. Instead what we have now is that every single site has a popup saying "Lorem ipsum" (nobody reads this), and you have to click "fuck off" to get to the content. Where there is no way of opting out of the data collection I leave, and I have taught my family to do the same. It is possible to run a website that doesn't use cookie popups. Amazon UK sets 3 essential cookies (i18n prefs and two session cookies) on first page load. https://basecamp.com/ https://basecamp.com/ doesn't set any. > ACTUAL security problems now, or ACTUAL choices, now cannot be warned about. Because if users were not good at reading actual meaningful warnings before, they sure as hell don't read them now. Sorry, which websites were warning users of potential security issues before? What choices were users being asked to make? I am not sure we were browsing the same web. > So not only is this law (1) not helping, people still have cookies. It's also (2) annoying absolutely everyone every day, with up to four "fuck off" buttons users need to click per page load, and (3) actively hurting via huge externalities, as described above. Remember that this law isn't about cookies. It's not a cookie law, it's a law about data privacy and control. Cookies are just one part of it. The law also deals with the safe and appropriate handling of user data, and when a website does pop up a huge hard to use banner that uses dark patterns to get you to click it then it's not the EU being annoying and forcing users through this annoying process, it's forcing websites to effectively tell users that they want to do extra things with their data. It's like forcing bank robbers to dress up in stripey shirts and use bags labelled "SWAG". Any website that is doing that is basically being forced to wave a big red flag "I AM DOING DODGY THINGS WITH YOUR DATA" when you visit. You can at that point blindly click the "Accept" button if you want, I choose to leave. The web industry, and avertisers in particular, have had over 20 years to pull their shit together to avoid this, but they didn't, so now we have this. > Oh, and for extra bonus on a weekly basis I run into websites that chose to simply block users from EU IPs, presumably after a ROI calculation. Thanks, EU. I've hit very few of those, and to be honest it's not been a particularly big deal. It's also their choice. Don't want to stick to the EU speed limit? Don't drive on the EU roads. > Are you in Europe? For now.

Care to elaborate on that? I rather like it. As a developer it's a pain, but as a citizen I find it to be a step in the right direction.

by wlll 6y ago

Care to elaborate on that? I rather like it. As a developer it's a pain, but as a citizen I find it to be a step in the right direction.

mikrosom 6y ago

I'd also be interested in an elaboration. It isn't much about the violation of the law itself but the violation of privacy; why do I have linkedin.com, spiceworks.com, techtarget.com, godknowswhat.com suspiciously dumping cookies in my browser?

knorker 6y ago
And that has changed now? (more text here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028296)
jeofken 6y ago
Keeping cookies is voluntary - the HTTP header can only ask if you wish to keep it. Most popular user agents just keep all cookies by default, but it’s by no means given.

lkbm 6y ago

I think there's some merit to "this site uses cookies to track you as you visit different sites". There's none whatsoever to "this site uses cookies to remember your login information". The law seems to make no distinction. As a user, I view every cookie notice as pointless and annoying -- obviously you use cookies, and obviously I'm okay with it. If the notice were specifically about cross-site tracking, that would be a meaningful notice, and opting out would make sense. Session cookies, though? You're warning me about session cookies? If I could set a blanket "I accept cookies" in my browser settings and have those notices all go away,. I would in a heartbeat. And, in fact, I DO have a blanket "I accept cookies" setting in my browser. Sadly, I'm still forced to manually opt-in on each stupid website. Ideally, we would distinguish between different "types" of cookies (and I believe the law requires you do this), and we would have settings specifically for these in browsers (which we sort of do in a limited fashion), and we would simply make it a setting defaulted to "ask". show notice only if the user has manually changed the setting from "ask" to "accept" for the types of cookies used on a site. Boom, useful and non-annoying cookie notices. Until we do that, it's a bad system, and a useless law.

yladiz 6y ago
> The law seems to make no distinction. What do you mean by this? The law does make a distinction between essential and nonessential cookies (cookies that are necessary for the function of the website/app, i.e. session cookies, and not necessary, i.e. analytics IDs) and requires you to get consent for nonessential cookies, while allowing essential cookies. If a website doesn't set any nonessential cookies then it doesn't need to ask for consent.
- lkbm 6y ago
  Good point. I'm certainly not an expert on the law -- I did some quick googling, but not a lot. Session cookies, e.g. are fine. As best I can tell, "remember me" / "remember my email" checkboxes still do require a banner, though I'm not sure. Preference cookies in general seem to. That strikes me as silly. Facebook's tracking me on thousands of unrelated websites; Wikipedia is remembering that I X'd out the donation banner last week and don't want to be shown it again[0]. These are entirely different use-cases with entirely different privacy implications. As far as I can tell, both require a banner, and while the banner allegedly has (or links to) details about which is occurring, I've never, ever paid enough attention to those banners to see those details. Part of this mess may be due to the fact that our client software is dominated by the largest advertiser, but I'd prefer regulations that address that by demanding privacy-respecting settings and setting defaults, not by showing me banners that I've never found useful. I use uBlock Origin and Firefox' tracking protection. I don't use the consent banners. I think most people automatically click "yes" on those, yet given the option to block tracking cookies en masse, would enable that option. [0] Okay, seems as if Wikipedia ISN'T storing that info, but I wish they did.
  - ajnin 6y ago
    The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.

burke 6y ago

In my opinion, it’s solving the problem at the wrong level. If you, as a government, want to coerce someone into solving this problem, it should be forcing browser vendors to provide more visibility into and control over (especially third-party) cookies. Instead, we have a banner you have to interact with as the price to visit pretty much any website.

rafram 6y ago
I don’t know, I think the banner is a pain but it is absolutely the responsibility of web developers to allow user choice in tracking. Cookies don’t have to be third-party to be harmful. If the roads are bad, we need to fix the roads, not just tell everyone to drive better cars.
- contravariant 6y ago
  I mean sure, but technically you already have that choice. It's entirely up to you whether to keep, discard or modify cookies. Your user agent is doing a bad job of managing this for you.
  - wlll 6y ago
    GDPR isn't a cookie law, it's a data privacy law. Cookies aren't the problem, it's what people are doing with the data that's the issue. You can track people with all sorts of other means other than cookies, you would also need to get people's permission to do this.
    - contravariant 6y ago
      We were specifically discussing the cookie banners though.
      - wlll 6y ago
        Yes, but in the context of GDPR, which doesn't really go into detail about cookies, "…throughout its’ 88 pages, it only mentions cookies directly once" - https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/. The issue is handling of PII, tracking users and the hoops companies are jumping through to try to trick users into agreeing to allow this. In reality forcing users to select through the myriad of cookies that many sites set isn't practical, and doesn't get round the fact that you still would have to "Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies." A better technical solution would be to enforce that web applications respect a client header that specifies the level of cookies the client will allow (see https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/). An even better solution to this would be to stop the invasive tracking and profiling of users that has brought us to this point at all.

knorker 6y ago

Back in the 90s we had cookie confirmation things. A browser called konqueror even had it on by default. Every time a server tried to set a cookie you got a chance to say no, etc… For users it was as awful then as the experience is now. The people who made this law seemed to be under the impression that sites would react by removing cookies. This is naive or plain stupid. Instead what we have now is that every single site has a popup saying "Lorem ipsum" (nobody reads this), and you have to click "fuck off" to get to the content. I would LIKE to say that all this law does is annoy people. I would like that, but no. Instead what it does is train literally billions of people to click "fuck off" (actual text is usually something like "I agree", but what the user means is "fuck off, I'm trying to read the article"), without reading what the box says. ACTUAL security problems now, or ACTUAL choices, now cannot be warned about. Because if users were not good at reading actual meaningful warnings before, they sure as hell don't read them now. So not only is this law (1) not helping, people still have cookies. It's also (2) annoying absolutely everyone every day, with up to four "fuck off" buttons users need to click per page load, and (3) actively hurting via huge externalities, as described above. Oh, and for extra bonus on a weekly basis I run into websites that chose to simply block users from EU IPs, presumably after a ROI calculation. Thanks, EU. Are you in Europe?

wlll 6y ago
> Back in the 90s we had cookie confirmation things. A browser called konqueror even had it on by default. Every time a server tried to set a cookie you got a chance to say no, etc… > > For users it was as awful then as the experience is now. Yes, I remember. Back in the 90s you could always choose another browser that didn't do that, and we didn't yet have the rampant data collection and exploitation that we have seen since. Back in the 90s it was a novel thing when $known_company got a website at all. In the intervening years a huge amount of our life and identity has moved online. > The people who made this law seemed to be under the impression that sites would react by removing cookies. This is naive or plain stupid. Instead what we have now is that every single site has a popup saying "Lorem ipsum" (nobody reads this), and you have to click "fuck off" to get to the content. Where there is no way of opting out of the data collection I leave, and I have taught my family to do the same. It is possible to run a website that doesn't use cookie popups. Amazon UK sets 3 essential cookies (i18n prefs and two session cookies) on first page load. https://basecamp.com/ https://basecamp.com/ doesn't set any. > ACTUAL security problems now, or ACTUAL choices, now cannot be warned about. Because if users were not good at reading actual meaningful warnings before, they sure as hell don't read them now. Sorry, which websites were warning users of potential security issues before? What choices were users being asked to make? I am not sure we were browsing the same web. > So not only is this law (1) not helping, people still have cookies. It's also (2) annoying absolutely everyone every day, with up to four "fuck off" buttons users need to click per page load, and (3) actively hurting via huge externalities, as described above. Remember that this law isn't about cookies. It's not a cookie law, it's a law about data privacy and control. Cookies are just one part of it. The law also deals with the safe and appropriate handling of user data, and when a website does pop up a huge hard to use banner that uses dark patterns to get you to click it then it's not the EU being annoying and forcing users through this annoying process, it's forcing websites to effectively tell users that they want to do extra things with their data. It's like forcing bank robbers to dress up in stripey shirts and use bags labelled "SWAG". Any website that is doing that is basically being forced to wave a big red flag "I AM DOING DODGY THINGS WITH YOUR DATA" when you visit. You can at that point blindly click the "Accept" button if you want, I choose to leave. The web industry, and avertisers in particular, have had over 20 years to pull their shit together to avoid this, but they didn't, so now we have this. > Oh, and for extra bonus on a weekly basis I run into websites that chose to simply block users from EU IPs, presumably after a ROI calculation. Thanks, EU. I've hit very few of those, and to be honest it's not been a particularly big deal. It's also their choice. Don't want to stick to the EU speed limit? Don't drive on the EU roads. > Are you in Europe? For now.