3 ms·

The linked page is closer to https://lobste.rs https://lobste.rs (or maybe ProductHunt) hosting a scary-looking webpage with the words "Hacker News is Illegal"

by Permit 5y ago

The linked page is closer to https://lobste.rs https://lobste.rs (or maybe ProductHunt) hosting a scary-looking webpage with the words "Hacker News is Illegal" on the front of it. Why? Because Hacker News does not indicate that the login cookie provided to you with be persistent. From: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2012/wp194_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... > Persistent login cookies which store an authentication token across browser sessions are not exempted under CRITERION B. This is an important distinction because the user may not be immediately aware of the fact that closing the browser will not clear their authentication settings. They may return to the website under the assumption that they are anonymous whilst in fact they are still logged in to the service. The commonly seen method of using a checkbox and a simple information note such as “remember me (uses cookies)” next to the submit form would be an appropriate means of gaining consent therefore negating the need to apply an exemption in this case. I think this situation is much closer to what's going on in the original post. No one's life is threatened, but the letter of the law has been broken. Would it be tasteful to put up such a site?

whimsicalism 5y ago
No, I think it would be as if Hacker News had already lost a case that their cookies are illegal.
zauguin 5y ago
> I think this situation is much closer to what's going on in the original post. No one's life is threatened, but the letter of the law has been broken. I strongly disagree. First, it's not just the letter of the law which is violated. The basic intent of the law is at odds with the actions of Google Analytics. Starting with Safe Harbour, Privacy Shield and now the standard contractual clauses, the courts consistently decided that no matter how precisly it is formulated, data is just not sufficiently protected by current US laws to allow sharing. Also the important difference with Hacker News is that Hacker News violating these rules mostly affects Hacker News itself, while GA violating the rules leads to liability risks for web developers who keep transmitting third party personal data to it.

by Permit 5y ago

whimsicalism 5y ago

No, I think it would be as if Hacker News had already lost a case that their cookies are illegal.

zauguin 5y ago

> I think this situation is much closer to what's going on in the original post. No one's life is threatened, but the letter of the law has been broken. I strongly disagree. First, it's not just the letter of the law which is violated. The basic intent of the law is at odds with the actions of Google Analytics. Starting with Safe Harbour, Privacy Shield and now the standard contractual clauses, the courts consistently decided that no matter how precisly it is formulated, data is just not sufficiently protected by current US laws to allow sharing. Also the important difference with Hacker News is that Hacker News violating these rules mostly affects Hacker News itself, while GA violating the rules leads to liability risks for web developers who keep transmitting third party personal data to it.