9 ms·

The commenters here seem to take for granted that this cookie law is a good thing and Google/Facebook are evil villains, but there is a difference between a law

The commenters here seem to take for granted that this cookie law is a good thing and Google/Facebook are evil villains, but there is a difference between a law and a good/just/reasonable law. I would argue interrupting the experience and wasting billions of peoples time clicking on cookie banners is also a form of harm. That’s certainly been my perception as an end user under this policy. I don’t work in ad tech and have no financial stake in this, I’m just sick to death of these fucking cookie popups.

sofixa 5y ago
But the law isn't about cookies, it's about tracking and making sure you, the user, know you are being tracked. The poor UX is malicious compliance and seems to be working since so many people complaining about cookie banners and the law but not companies tracking you, the actual bad guys.
- baby 5y ago
  It doesn’t matter what the law is about, what matters are the actual consequences and the impact that the law has had. So far it has had quite a negative impact for users. I really don’t see how this was a win for anyone.
  - pull_my_finger 5y ago
    I wonder if you're playing Devil's advocate or you really are defending this.. They could skip the "burden" users face by just not using so many dang tracking cookies. If you want information about how your customers use the site, or what their interests are, you can just _ask_ and try to solicit feedback explicitly. Most of the people will likely decline, but that _should be_ their choice to do so. And providing feedback _should be_ opt-in, not opt-OUT.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    The law: exists, and is quite unequivocal. Sites: implement things that are actually illegal under the law HN, en masse: the law is bad, how can you say it's good? EU has been very slow in going after websites, but I do hope they pick up the pace.
    - Kstarek 5y ago
      EU has far overreached, I hope their declining relevancy hastens and their holier than thou attitude continues to aid it in doing so
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > EU has far overreached How exactly did it overreach? Every country in Europe had data protection laws prior to GDPR. All these shitty sites ignored them. So EU created a single law. If you want to sell people's data without their consent, go <expletive deleted>. The US will eventually have similar laws as well (CCPA is one if them)
    - baby 5y ago
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        10 years in Sweden, and counting.
        baby 5y ago
        Maybe you have the opposite problem then, get out for a trip and see how much better browsing the web is
        dmitriid 5y ago
        You have any arguments beyond ad hominem? This law exposes a very serious problem: even sites like Oracle's news blog or Volvo's corporate site, or British Airways's profile pages are selling your data to hundreds of advertisers.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - qwertox 5y ago
    The consequences only highlight the problem. We're currently in the first stage in a transition towards allowing the end user to express their wishes about tracking which then companies need to respect. It only shows how disrespectful almost all companies are by attempting to shape the end users opinion on this law by attacking them with dark patterns. If France is now expecting companies to equalize the opt-in and the opt-out behavior, they're essentially attacking these dark patterns, which is very welcome by almost all end users. I hope that there will come a point in time when I can go into the settings of my browser, tell it what the default behavior (answer) should be and possibly even express interests in certain ad categories to whitelist them, like "biking". It would be a granular "Do Not Track" option which must be respected by the website.
- bhk 5y ago
  > But the law isn't about cookies EU law very much is about cookies. > ... the ePrivacy Directive (EPD) has become known as the “cookie law” since its most notable effect was the proliferation of cookie consent pop-ups after it was passed. > Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. > However, properly informing your users about the cookies your site is using and, when necessary, receiving their consent will keep your users happy and keep you GDPR-compliant. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
JCWasmx86 5y ago
A lot of websites don't show cookie banners (DuckDuckGo, GitHub, HN, gitlab, etc.). Sure, the law has some minor mistakes, but it is the fault of the websites. If they didn't track the user, they wouldn't have to display a banner.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  GitLab has definitely shown me a cookie banner in the past. Did they find a way around it?
  - JCWasmx86 5y ago
    In a new session https://gitlab.com https://gitlab.com or e.g. https://gitlab.com/ase/ase https://gitlab.com/ase/ase don't show me a cookie banner.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
      I just opened that first link in a private window, and I get a cookie banner. Maybe because I'm in France.
- SilasX 5y ago
  GitHub’s approach is really dubious and probably violates GDPR as well. They “only use necessary cookies” but then do (unnecessary) analytics on those necessary cookies. But doing the unnecessary part still requires explicit consent. Discussion of this point at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903
aenario 5y ago
You are complaining that the allergens information takes room on your restaurant menu. We the people, through our democratic processes, have asked companies for transparency of their tracking process, the industry have decided as a whole to say fuck off and made the process as painful as possible. Yes, the companies are evil/stupid villains on this case. Not everything needs bloody philosophy.
- dskinner 5y ago
  Practically everyone tracks. Not practically everyone prepares food in a facility that also handles shellfish, etc. It's not philosophical that op reports (being sick of) clicking cookie banner ads in each site they visit. It's not even surprising empirically.
- jurassic 5y ago
  Who is "we" though? I certainly had no part in a European democratic process that led to these laws but I still have to get nagged by popups every day.
vanusa 5y ago
I would argue interrupting the experience and wasting billions of peoples time clicking on cookie banners is also a form of harm. Right. We should just be able to set a blanket "No" in our browser preference tab, and be done.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  And all of the businesses can proceed to ignore that setting. At which point you're back to where we are now - an issue of enforcement. All of these garbage cookie banners are just as noncompliant as ignoring that setting would be. You wouldn't have cookie banners to deal with, but at least clicking through those now supposedly results in less data being tracked.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    At which point you're back to where we are now - an issue of enforcement. Which is what the orange jumpsuits + baloney sandwiches are for. See my other recommendations in this thread.
    - treeman79 5y ago
      Big companies sending executives of smaller companies to jail over arcane laws is a thing. Being fully compliant is very hard. Or requires lots of bribes or both.
r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
Those cookie popups are only there because websites are collecting non-essential information from visitors. If you only use essential cookies that perform functions like remembering the contents of a shopping cart, or providing security when you log in, without which the process could not work, then you are exempt from the consent requirement and quite happily have a website with no cookie consent banner. The popups are there because most devs are determined to stuff user tracking and analytics which they really, really need (despite never looking at them) into absolutely everything they develop, even though 99% of the time there's eff all point.
- immibis 5y ago
  Most capitalists* Not devs.

sofixa 5y ago

But the law isn't about cookies, it's about tracking and making sure you, the user, know you are being tracked. The poor UX is malicious compliance and seems to be working since so many people complaining about cookie banners and the law but not companies tracking you, the actual bad guys.

baby 5y ago
It doesn’t matter what the law is about, what matters are the actual consequences and the impact that the law has had. So far it has had quite a negative impact for users. I really don’t see how this was a win for anyone.
- pull_my_finger 5y ago
  I wonder if you're playing Devil's advocate or you really are defending this.. They could skip the "burden" users face by just not using so many dang tracking cookies. If you want information about how your customers use the site, or what their interests are, you can just _ask_ and try to solicit feedback explicitly. Most of the people will likely decline, but that _should be_ their choice to do so. And providing feedback _should be_ opt-in, not opt-OUT.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  The law: exists, and is quite unequivocal. Sites: implement things that are actually illegal under the law HN, en masse: the law is bad, how can you say it's good? EU has been very slow in going after websites, but I do hope they pick up the pace.
  - Kstarek 5y ago
    EU has far overreached, I hope their declining relevancy hastens and their holier than thou attitude continues to aid it in doing so
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > EU has far overreached How exactly did it overreach? Every country in Europe had data protection laws prior to GDPR. All these shitty sites ignored them. So EU created a single law. If you want to sell people's data without their consent, go <expletive deleted>. The US will eventually have similar laws as well (CCPA is one if them)
  - baby 5y ago
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      10 years in Sweden, and counting.
      - baby 5y ago
        Maybe you have the opposite problem then, get out for a trip and see how much better browsing the web is
        dmitriid 5y ago
        You have any arguments beyond ad hominem? This law exposes a very serious problem: even sites like Oracle's news blog or Volvo's corporate site, or British Airways's profile pages are selling your data to hundreds of advertisers.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- qwertox 5y ago
  The consequences only highlight the problem. We're currently in the first stage in a transition towards allowing the end user to express their wishes about tracking which then companies need to respect. It only shows how disrespectful almost all companies are by attempting to shape the end users opinion on this law by attacking them with dark patterns. If France is now expecting companies to equalize the opt-in and the opt-out behavior, they're essentially attacking these dark patterns, which is very welcome by almost all end users. I hope that there will come a point in time when I can go into the settings of my browser, tell it what the default behavior (answer) should be and possibly even express interests in certain ad categories to whitelist them, like "biking". It would be a granular "Do Not Track" option which must be respected by the website.
bhk 5y ago
> But the law isn't about cookies EU law very much is about cookies. > ... the ePrivacy Directive (EPD) has become known as the “cookie law” since its most notable effect was the proliferation of cookie consent pop-ups after it was passed. > Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. > However, properly informing your users about the cookies your site is using and, when necessary, receiving their consent will keep your users happy and keep you GDPR-compliant. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

JCWasmx86 5y ago

A lot of websites don't show cookie banners (DuckDuckGo, GitHub, HN, gitlab, etc.). Sure, the law has some minor mistakes, but it is the fault of the websites. If they didn't track the user, they wouldn't have to display a banner.

CameronNemo 5y ago
GitLab has definitely shown me a cookie banner in the past. Did they find a way around it?
- JCWasmx86 5y ago
  In a new session https://gitlab.com https://gitlab.com or e.g. https://gitlab.com/ase/ase https://gitlab.com/ase/ase don't show me a cookie banner.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    I just opened that first link in a private window, and I get a cookie banner. Maybe because I'm in France.
SilasX 5y ago
GitHub’s approach is really dubious and probably violates GDPR as well. They “only use necessary cookies” but then do (unnecessary) analytics on those necessary cookies. But doing the unnecessary part still requires explicit consent. Discussion of this point at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25457903

aenario 5y ago

You are complaining that the allergens information takes room on your restaurant menu. We the people, through our democratic processes, have asked companies for transparency of their tracking process, the industry have decided as a whole to say fuck off and made the process as painful as possible. Yes, the companies are evil/stupid villains on this case. Not everything needs bloody philosophy.

dskinner 5y ago
Practically everyone tracks. Not practically everyone prepares food in a facility that also handles shellfish, etc. It's not philosophical that op reports (being sick of) clicking cookie banner ads in each site they visit. It's not even surprising empirically.
jurassic 5y ago
Who is "we" though? I certainly had no part in a European democratic process that led to these laws but I still have to get nagged by popups every day.

vanusa 5y ago

I would argue interrupting the experience and wasting billions of peoples time clicking on cookie banners is also a form of harm. Right. We should just be able to set a blanket "No" in our browser preference tab, and be done.

anonymousab 5y ago
And all of the businesses can proceed to ignore that setting. At which point you're back to where we are now - an issue of enforcement. All of these garbage cookie banners are just as noncompliant as ignoring that setting would be. You wouldn't have cookie banners to deal with, but at least clicking through those now supposedly results in less data being tracked.
- vanusa 5y ago
  At which point you're back to where we are now - an issue of enforcement. Which is what the orange jumpsuits + baloney sandwiches are for. See my other recommendations in this thread.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    Big companies sending executives of smaller companies to jail over arcane laws is a thing. Being fully compliant is very hard. Or requires lots of bribes or both.

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago

Those cookie popups are only there because websites are collecting non-essential information from visitors. If you only use essential cookies that perform functions like remembering the contents of a shopping cart, or providing security when you log in, without which the process could not work, then you are exempt from the consent requirement and quite happily have a website with no cookie consent banner. The popups are there because most devs are determined to stuff user tracking and analytics which they really, really need (despite never looking at them) into absolutely everything they develop, even though 99% of the time there's eff all point.

immibis 5y ago
Most capitalists* Not devs.