6 ms·

I don't understand why people care about cookies. The stupid cookie banners are an actual nuisance.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
The nuisance is an intentional choice by the bad actors in marketing to make you mad about the banner instead of their business practices of tracking you everywhere. Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense.
- jacamera 4y ago
  Why should I be mad about a tracking cookie? > Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense. How are they malicious compliance? The laws are poorly-reasoned and poorly-written. I'll continue to be mad about that.
  - haileys 4y ago
    There are no laws in Australia requiring cookie banners, and yet I get hit with them constantly. So the law is clearly not the reason for these annoying banners.
    - jacamera 4y ago
      So then why do you think you see them? *Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude but it was a legitimate question. I honestly cannot think of another plausible reason that would explain the proliferation of the banners.
    - lopatin 4y ago
      Which Australian sites require cookie opt-ins?
    - Zarel 4y ago
      The EU laws require the banners to be shown to all EU citizens regardless of the country they're in, right? I think the only way to be absolutely safe is to show cookie banners everywhere.
      - petre 4y ago
        No it doesn't. It stipulates that the site operators need informed consent to track you using cookies. So what they do is nag you with dark patterns to obtain it, creating an annoying experience.
      - closewith 4y ago
        No, it applies to EU residents, no matter their citizenship.
    - aneeshnl 4y ago
      Developer here. Its much easier and a lazy way to enable for everyone, rather than tracking ips, citizenship and show accordingly. Developers are lazy.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  This is an utterly annoying failure of legislation. The law could have mandated that a standardized mechanism to opt in (or even out!) would be implemented by major browsers and the relevant standards, providing APIs for websites to integrate. It could have even been about that vague and still be more effective and less counterproductive. The actual legislation invites this sort of abuse. Understanding that the abuse is intentional is a component of understanding the situation. But the blame for it doesn’t absolve the law, it implicates it. If the vague proposal I’m suggesting sounds outlandish, that’s more or less how every major browser implements other requests for intrusive APIs as a matter of protecting users. Even when they do it half-heartedly they do it by developing a standard with their more invested peers which is far less prone to universal abuse.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    I agree it was a weak legislation, but I think governments failed at the time to realize just how blatantly crooked the tech industry is, and is willing to be. I think it's taken a while but more aggressive actions are starting to be taken. Though ultimately I don't think we'll have straightened out Big Tech until we have laws on the books that let us put Pichai and Zuckerberg in prison. As long as their actions can be aspired to instead of a cautionary tale, more will follow in their footsteps.
e2le 4y ago
Only consent is needed for cookies that aren't strictly necessary. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ If a site is asking for consent, they're either idiots who don't understand what the law requires of them or they intend on tracking their users.
- jacamera 4y ago
  How do I grant universal consent to be tracked so that I can browse the web in peace? The law failed to consider this and made the browsing experience considerably worse for those of us who couldn't care less about being tracked. Not to mention teaching users who are not tech-savvy to blindly click "I Accept" and "I Agree" without thinking about it which is an absolute disaster since such users cannot distinguish between a marketing cookie prompt and an OS elevation prompt coming from a piece of malware they just downloaded.
  - nulbyte 4y ago
    As I understand it, the GDPR did not make web browsing a worse experience. Rather, folks tasked with compliance at a few companies came up with a horrible solution that probably doesn't actually comply, and everyone started copying it. GDPR requires consent; it doesn't require you to come up with the most obnoxious way to obtain it.
    - jacamera 4y ago
      Can you think of another way to implement it that wouldn't be just as obnoxious though? I feel like anything that could be perceived as unobtrusive could just as likely be seen as trying to hide or minimize the presence of the banner which might be construed as a violation of the law. I feel like EU regulators should have worked with web standards committees to add a technical means and requirement to classify cookies. Then browser vendors could allow users to choose which types of cookies they are willing to accept from which websites.
      - haupt 4y ago
booleandilemma 4y ago
They almost feel like a passive-aggressive thing at this point. There's no reason a cookie banner needs to be a modal dialog that blacks out the rest of the web page.
- ffhhj 4y ago
  It's a way for them to protest about having to place a banner at all.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    AFAIK GDPR requires that consent can be removed as easily as it was granted - where's the modal pop-up on every screen allowing me to revoke my prior consent and have their advertising partners delete any gathered data?
- cortesoft 4y ago
  It’s like prop 65 posters warning about carcinogens in California. If people insist you warn them about something they are doing, you get around it by forcing everyone to do it for everything so people start ignoring them.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    >If people insist you warn them about something they are doing, you get around it by forcing everyone to do it for everything so people start ignoring them. Who does "you" refer to in this sentence? A random business that doesn't like the warnings? How can that random business force everyone to do it for everything?
pbreit 4y ago
As much as I loathe the cookie warnings, I'm constantly amazed at situations that don't avoid them. For example: there is no reason that PayPal needs to serve 3rd party cookies in a payment flow. I've actually started to reject nonessential cookies most of the time now. Doubt it matters at all.
- WatchDog 4y ago
  Payment gateway integrations might be one of the few legitimate non-advertising use cases I can think of for 3rd party cookies. What makes you say they don't need them?
  - lopatin 4y ago
    Do you mean that if you reject the cookie then the transaction will fail?
    - lokedhs 4y ago
      If the use is required for the site to function, the data may be shared. The only ones you can reject are the ones that are not necessary, which usually involves ad trackers and similar things. It should also be noted that these popups are likely not legal (or rather, they probably don't constitute informed consent under the the GDPR), but that's a completely different discussion to be had.
    - WatchDog 4y ago
      I worked for a payment gateway years ago, when safari rolled out their initial blocking of third party cookies back in 2013 it broke some of our transaction flows yes. There are a bunch of different kinds of payment gateway integrations, with various tradeoffs. However a common pattern, at least at the time, was to use an iframe with the payment form in it. Our form was multi page, and used cookie based sessions to track state between pages, so when they started being blocked, the payment form stopped working for safari users. The solution we chose at the time was to put the session id into the URL, but that has it's own security issues. There are other ways to address that particular issue that don't involve cookies, but would have required a significant rewrite of the system. Some potentially legitimate ongoing use cases for 3rd party cookies, would be remembering payment details, and one click checkout across various sites that use the same payment gateway.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Yep, this is why we can't have nice things. Nice things sometimes sound nice initially but they have major design flaws and made by people who don't know much about things. But these people have monopoly of coercion on you so you can't really do anything about it. > “The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” -Madison, Federalist No. 48 HN is still in a love affair with GDPR. Nice things need to be thoroughly thought out.
autoexec 4y ago
You really don't understand why people don't want to have their internet history logged or be tracked as they browse the internet? Cookies that track you are bad. The banners are bad too.

The nuisance is an intentional choice by the bad actors in marketing to make you mad about the banner instead of their business practices of tracking you everywhere. Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense.

jacamera 4y ago
Why should I be mad about a tracking cookie? > Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense. How are they malicious compliance? The laws are poorly-reasoned and poorly-written. I'll continue to be mad about that.
- haileys 4y ago
  There are no laws in Australia requiring cookie banners, and yet I get hit with them constantly. So the law is clearly not the reason for these annoying banners.
  - jacamera 4y ago
    So then why do you think you see them? *Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude but it was a legitimate question. I honestly cannot think of another plausible reason that would explain the proliferation of the banners.
  - lopatin 4y ago
    Which Australian sites require cookie opt-ins?
  - Zarel 4y ago
    The EU laws require the banners to be shown to all EU citizens regardless of the country they're in, right? I think the only way to be absolutely safe is to show cookie banners everywhere.
    - petre 4y ago
      No it doesn't. It stipulates that the site operators need informed consent to track you using cookies. So what they do is nag you with dark patterns to obtain it, creating an annoying experience.
    - closewith 4y ago
      No, it applies to EU residents, no matter their citizenship.
  - aneeshnl 4y ago
    Developer here. Its much easier and a lazy way to enable for everyone, rather than tracking ips, citizenship and show accordingly. Developers are lazy.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
This is an utterly annoying failure of legislation. The law could have mandated that a standardized mechanism to opt in (or even out!) would be implemented by major browsers and the relevant standards, providing APIs for websites to integrate. It could have even been about that vague and still be more effective and less counterproductive. The actual legislation invites this sort of abuse. Understanding that the abuse is intentional is a component of understanding the situation. But the blame for it doesn’t absolve the law, it implicates it. If the vague proposal I’m suggesting sounds outlandish, that’s more or less how every major browser implements other requests for intrusive APIs as a matter of protecting users. Even when they do it half-heartedly they do it by developing a standard with their more invested peers which is far less prone to universal abuse.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  I agree it was a weak legislation, but I think governments failed at the time to realize just how blatantly crooked the tech industry is, and is willing to be. I think it's taken a while but more aggressive actions are starting to be taken. Though ultimately I don't think we'll have straightened out Big Tech until we have laws on the books that let us put Pichai and Zuckerberg in prison. As long as their actions can be aspired to instead of a cautionary tale, more will follow in their footsteps.

e2le 4y ago

Only consent is needed for cookies that aren't strictly necessary. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ If a site is asking for consent, they're either idiots who don't understand what the law requires of them or they intend on tracking their users.

jacamera 4y ago
How do I grant universal consent to be tracked so that I can browse the web in peace? The law failed to consider this and made the browsing experience considerably worse for those of us who couldn't care less about being tracked. Not to mention teaching users who are not tech-savvy to blindly click "I Accept" and "I Agree" without thinking about it which is an absolute disaster since such users cannot distinguish between a marketing cookie prompt and an OS elevation prompt coming from a piece of malware they just downloaded.
- nulbyte 4y ago
  As I understand it, the GDPR did not make web browsing a worse experience. Rather, folks tasked with compliance at a few companies came up with a horrible solution that probably doesn't actually comply, and everyone started copying it. GDPR requires consent; it doesn't require you to come up with the most obnoxious way to obtain it.
  - jacamera 4y ago
    Can you think of another way to implement it that wouldn't be just as obnoxious though? I feel like anything that could be perceived as unobtrusive could just as likely be seen as trying to hide or minimize the presence of the banner which might be construed as a violation of the law. I feel like EU regulators should have worked with web standards committees to add a technical means and requirement to classify cookies. Then browser vendors could allow users to choose which types of cookies they are willing to accept from which websites.
    - haupt 4y ago

booleandilemma 4y ago

They almost feel like a passive-aggressive thing at this point. There's no reason a cookie banner needs to be a modal dialog that blacks out the rest of the web page.

ffhhj 4y ago
It's a way for them to protest about having to place a banner at all.
- dwaite 4y ago
  AFAIK GDPR requires that consent can be removed as easily as it was granted - where's the modal pop-up on every screen allowing me to revoke my prior consent and have their advertising partners delete any gathered data?
cortesoft 4y ago
It’s like prop 65 posters warning about carcinogens in California. If people insist you warn them about something they are doing, you get around it by forcing everyone to do it for everything so people start ignoring them.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  >If people insist you warn them about something they are doing, you get around it by forcing everyone to do it for everything so people start ignoring them. Who does "you" refer to in this sentence? A random business that doesn't like the warnings? How can that random business force everyone to do it for everything?

pbreit 4y ago

As much as I loathe the cookie warnings, I'm constantly amazed at situations that don't avoid them. For example: there is no reason that PayPal needs to serve 3rd party cookies in a payment flow. I've actually started to reject nonessential cookies most of the time now. Doubt it matters at all.

WatchDog 4y ago
Payment gateway integrations might be one of the few legitimate non-advertising use cases I can think of for 3rd party cookies. What makes you say they don't need them?
- lopatin 4y ago
  Do you mean that if you reject the cookie then the transaction will fail?
  - lokedhs 4y ago
    If the use is required for the site to function, the data may be shared. The only ones you can reject are the ones that are not necessary, which usually involves ad trackers and similar things. It should also be noted that these popups are likely not legal (or rather, they probably don't constitute informed consent under the the GDPR), but that's a completely different discussion to be had.
  - WatchDog 4y ago
    I worked for a payment gateway years ago, when safari rolled out their initial blocking of third party cookies back in 2013 it broke some of our transaction flows yes. There are a bunch of different kinds of payment gateway integrations, with various tradeoffs. However a common pattern, at least at the time, was to use an iframe with the payment form in it. Our form was multi page, and used cookie based sessions to track state between pages, so when they started being blocked, the payment form stopped working for safari users. The solution we chose at the time was to put the session id into the URL, but that has it's own security issues. There are other ways to address that particular issue that don't involve cookies, but would have required a significant rewrite of the system. Some potentially legitimate ongoing use cases for 3rd party cookies, would be remembering payment details, and one click checkout across various sites that use the same payment gateway.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Yep, this is why we can't have nice things. Nice things sometimes sound nice initially but they have major design flaws and made by people who don't know much about things. But these people have monopoly of coercion on you so you can't really do anything about it. > “The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” -Madison, Federalist No. 48 HN is still in a love affair with GDPR. Nice things need to be thoroughly thought out.

autoexec 4y ago

You really don't understand why people don't want to have their internet history logged or be tracked as they browse the internet? Cookies that track you are bad. The banners are bad too.