4 ms·

These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can choose not to accept cookies using

These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can choose not to accept cookies using my own browser controls, or delete them after 1 hour etc.

neon_electro 6y ago
"govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner implementation Docker is using.
- nvr219 6y ago
  yeah this is Docker's legal team.
- enumjorge 6y ago
  Yeah the government is far from perfect, but people also treat it as a punching bag. It was companies who used the lack of regulation in tech to abuse cookies, and our government responded with regulation. And now some sites are implementing those rules in very annoying ways. Instead of getting mad at the party who is trying to protect you in this situation, how about directing that anger at the parties who caused the problem in the first place?
  - twox2 6y ago
    I disagree. It's the over-regulation that calls for these pain in the ass implementations.
    - twox2 6y ago
      Downvote all you want, but you're in denial. GDPR and the like are nothing more than "privacy theater". I work in this industry and know it very well. Cookie opt outs or forced opt-ins on publisher pages aren't helping anyone with anything. The whole thing is just a farce so that they can enforce this against bigger tech companies when they want to. They should just tax them outright and save us all the trouble.
      - random5634 6y ago
        No kidding. The first sign is how intrusive it all is. The second sign is how ineffective it is at anything web / crime related people actually care about (normal people). On HN it's like - go ahead and let me cable company and cell phone company track / sell and target me on my browsing history (wildly intrusive), but random website doing pet necklaces, try to stay on top of all the popups you need to shove at your users (who will all say OK) so you can show your page. If you can't share the data you buy up the other companies into groups and then are just using it "yourself" etc.
  - random5634 6y ago
    I control who sets cookies on my machine. We all do. Don't like them? Block them. What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I'm serious, has anyone analyzed this? It really shows how the heavy hand of govt has ZERO cost/benefit constraint or analysis. Browsing on phones is particularly painful. I wish we could just set an accept all cookies header in our browser and govt would let these websites then stop displaying these damn notices, banners and consent boxes. The GPDR ones (if you use euro websites) are getting even crazier.
    - yrro 6y ago
      > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? Disclosure
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but reject all other cookies. I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session authentication cookies, and reject all others. An outright block on all local cookies tends to break authentication for many sites.
      - KronisLV 6y ago
        Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari menu: - reject all cookies - allow only required cookies - allow all cookies And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming up with solutions that would basically trick people in clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some content?
        ncallaway 6y ago
        Well, that would require some kind of interoperability between the client and the website (like an HTTP header that sends cookie events). I absolutely would prefer that to the world we have now. I'm all on board, you don't have to convince me it's a good idea. But, that doesn't exist today. I do prefer having the stupid annoying popup that gives me the option to allow only required cookies to having no choice at all. The new GDPR compliant cookie popups give me that option. It's a step up above not having the option at all.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Malicious compliance.
  - random5634 6y ago
    Google is facing a 5B lawsuit over incongnito mode. The fact that someone goes overboard with this crap is not unreasonable.
speedgoose 6y ago
It's actually not about the cookies, a website is allowed to have technical cookies without a banner, but getting your consent to track you and use and sell your data.
- littlecranky67 6y ago
  Exactly. But trackers try to hide this and make it seem harmless.
wongarsu 6y ago
Docker's implementation is instant if you accept, but takes an eternity if you only want essential cookies. That seems in violation of the ePrivacy directive which according to the official website [1] requires that you "Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place." I guess it's for the courts to decide if requiring the same number of clicks but letting you wait for an eternity is equally easy, but I doubt it. 1: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
- katsura 6y ago
  The problem is that it takes so long because they make a bunch of requests to the opt out endpoints of different services, which takes time. Of course, it is questionable why those requests are essential, but the point is that there is a reason to this madness.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    But why do they block user interaction while doing that? You can call those in the background. And why call an opt-out endpoint at all, after all there has to be a mechanism that prevents setting the cookie before the user sees the cookie banner. Just continue using that mechanism (e.g. gtag's consent default denied).
littlecranky67 6y ago
They dont need consent for cookies. They need consent for tracking
- random5634 6y ago
  Heads up - most users do NOT care about tracking, and click yes to these popups. Do folks on HN not get this? This is all posturing. If you want to reduce tracking, use a browser that reduces the tracking. Seriously, just use total cookie protection or something on firefox.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > most users do NOT care about tracking, and click yes to these popups By a corollary, some users DO care about tracking and click "no" to these popups.
    - random5634 6y ago
      Which ends up doing almost nothing in terms of actual tracking.
  - littlecranky67 6y ago
    There is a cookie banner filter list for uBlock Origin :)
hiq 6y ago
GitHub has no cookie banner[0], how come docker.com needs one? [0]: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
- SilasX 6y ago
  Per my comment on the HN discussion at the time, that was based on a very dubious interpretation of the law. They are getting around needing the popup by only using "necessary" cookies, which doesn't need consent, but then they turn around and use the cookies for unnecessary things (like analytics) that therefore do require a consent popup, but they don't ask for it. Analogy would be like: Law: you can't store someone's picture or personal data without their consent, unless it's necessary for the transaction. Most companies: <nag you for consent to store your picture> GitHub: We authenticate you by your face, so it's necessary to collect that, so we don't need to get your consent for it. Then, once we have it, we do whatever the fudge we want with it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903

neon_electro 6y ago

"govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner implementation Docker is using.

nvr219 6y ago
yeah this is Docker's legal team.
enumjorge 6y ago
Yeah the government is far from perfect, but people also treat it as a punching bag. It was companies who used the lack of regulation in tech to abuse cookies, and our government responded with regulation. And now some sites are implementing those rules in very annoying ways. Instead of getting mad at the party who is trying to protect you in this situation, how about directing that anger at the parties who caused the problem in the first place?
- twox2 6y ago
  I disagree. It's the over-regulation that calls for these pain in the ass implementations.
  - twox2 6y ago
    Downvote all you want, but you're in denial. GDPR and the like are nothing more than "privacy theater". I work in this industry and know it very well. Cookie opt outs or forced opt-ins on publisher pages aren't helping anyone with anything. The whole thing is just a farce so that they can enforce this against bigger tech companies when they want to. They should just tax them outright and save us all the trouble.
    - random5634 6y ago
      No kidding. The first sign is how intrusive it all is. The second sign is how ineffective it is at anything web / crime related people actually care about (normal people). On HN it's like - go ahead and let me cable company and cell phone company track / sell and target me on my browsing history (wildly intrusive), but random website doing pet necklaces, try to stay on top of all the popups you need to shove at your users (who will all say OK) so you can show your page. If you can't share the data you buy up the other companies into groups and then are just using it "yourself" etc.
- random5634 6y ago
  I control who sets cookies on my machine. We all do. Don't like them? Block them. What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I'm serious, has anyone analyzed this? It really shows how the heavy hand of govt has ZERO cost/benefit constraint or analysis. Browsing on phones is particularly painful. I wish we could just set an accept all cookies header in our browser and govt would let these websites then stop displaying these damn notices, banners and consent boxes. The GPDR ones (if you use euro websites) are getting even crazier.
  - yrro 6y ago
    > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? Disclosure
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but reject all other cookies. I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session authentication cookies, and reject all others. An outright block on all local cookies tends to break authentication for many sites.
    - KronisLV 6y ago
      Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari menu: - reject all cookies - allow only required cookies - allow all cookies And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming up with solutions that would basically trick people in clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some content?
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        Well, that would require some kind of interoperability between the client and the website (like an HTTP header that sends cookie events). I absolutely would prefer that to the world we have now. I'm all on board, you don't have to convince me it's a good idea. But, that doesn't exist today. I do prefer having the stupid annoying popup that gives me the option to allow only required cookies to having no choice at all. The new GDPR compliant cookie popups give me that option. It's a step up above not having the option at all.
hinkley 6y ago
Malicious compliance.
- random5634 6y ago
  Google is facing a 5B lawsuit over incongnito mode. The fact that someone goes overboard with this crap is not unreasonable.

speedgoose 6y ago

It's actually not about the cookies, a website is allowed to have technical cookies without a banner, but getting your consent to track you and use and sell your data.

littlecranky67 6y ago
Exactly. But trackers try to hide this and make it seem harmless.

wongarsu 6y ago

Docker's implementation is instant if you accept, but takes an eternity if you only want essential cookies. That seems in violation of the ePrivacy directive which according to the official website [1] requires that you "Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place." I guess it's for the courts to decide if requiring the same number of clicks but letting you wait for an eternity is equally easy, but I doubt it. 1: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

katsura 6y ago
The problem is that it takes so long because they make a bunch of requests to the opt out endpoints of different services, which takes time. Of course, it is questionable why those requests are essential, but the point is that there is a reason to this madness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wongarsu 6y ago
  But why do they block user interaction while doing that? You can call those in the background. And why call an opt-out endpoint at all, after all there has to be a mechanism that prevents setting the cookie before the user sees the cookie banner. Just continue using that mechanism (e.g. gtag's consent default denied).

littlecranky67 6y ago

They dont need consent for cookies. They need consent for tracking

random5634 6y ago
Heads up - most users do NOT care about tracking, and click yes to these popups. Do folks on HN not get this? This is all posturing. If you want to reduce tracking, use a browser that reduces the tracking. Seriously, just use total cookie protection or something on firefox.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > most users do NOT care about tracking, and click yes to these popups By a corollary, some users DO care about tracking and click "no" to these popups.
  - random5634 6y ago
    Which ends up doing almost nothing in terms of actual tracking.
- littlecranky67 6y ago
  There is a cookie banner filter list for uBlock Origin :)

hiq 6y ago

GitHub has no cookie banner[0], how come docker.com needs one? [0]: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/

SilasX 6y ago
Per my comment on the HN discussion at the time, that was based on a very dubious interpretation of the law. They are getting around needing the popup by only using "necessary" cookies, which doesn't need consent, but then they turn around and use the cookies for unnecessary things (like analytics) that therefore do require a consent popup, but they don't ask for it. Analogy would be like: Law: you can't store someone's picture or personal data without their consent, unless it's necessary for the transaction. Most companies: <nag you for consent to store your picture> GitHub: We authenticate you by your face, so it's necessary to collect that, so we don't need to get your consent for it. Then, once we have it, we do whatever the fudge we want with it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903