5 ms·

You are the first person I’ve read. Ever. Sticking up for consent banners that nobody asked for.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
Please read my comment again. Comment banners are the consequence of regulation. I'd rather poke my eye out than stick up for them. What i'm calling out is the dangerous series of events over the past few years which have been rooted in good intent to preserve privacy, that seem to be having the fallout of destroying the web experience. [edit] I can't believe HN has turned into a reddit style downvote brigade so i'll just post my response to the below comments in this edit since i can't reply anymore <shrug> And you've made my point exceedingly clear[1] That pretty much is the ambiguity left up to the whims and fancies of the EU bureaucracy to enforce. According to noyb.eu , the entity behind famous decisions at the CJEU, consent IS INDEED required[2] for ANY cookies to be stored on a users device. It isn't about data collection , if some rando agency or court finds Github or HN use fingerprinting of user preferences (as an example) or are LIKELY TO. . . it is considered a breach. A French agency fined Google and Facebook heavily for merely providing a more complex refusal flow for cookies than the accept flow. [1] https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-million-euros-and-facebook-60-million-euros-non-compliance https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-m... [2] https://noyb.eu/en/project/cookie-banners#:~:text=Cookie%20banners%20are%20regulated%20under,needs%20to%20obtain%20valid%20consent https://noyb.eu/en/project/cookie-banners#:~:text=Cookie%20b....
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  Comment banners are the consequence of regulation. No, consent banners are a consequence of scummy companies trying to vacuum up your personal data for nefarious reasons. They are not required by any regulation, aside from in cases where a company is asking to use your data in non-essential ways.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    and yet the companies still exist doing the same thing and web browsing is worse.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      I hear brave fixed it
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Consent banners are definitively not required by the GDPR. Consent is only required for non-essential collection of user data, or for non-essential processing of user data. For example, Strava would not need consent to collect user GPS location, as that is core to the product that Strava provides to users. Hacker News would require consent to collect user GPS location, as user GPS location is not essential for posting links/comments. In addition, because consent is specific to a use of data and not to the collection of data, Strava would require additional consent in order to use that GPS data for advertising. The GDPR doesn't require consent pop-ups. Companies choose to add consent pop-ups when they exceed the minimum amount of personal data collection.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Well, no matter who you want to blame, it all started with a bunch of ignorant lawmakers who caused a series of events that made web browsing worse.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      Please substantiate your claims. Your single sentence managed to pack three unsubstantiated claims into it. * "Started with" implies that there were no motivating factors for the GDPR, nor a situation being responded to. Online surveillance is a clear harm being done to users, to which the GDPR is a clear response. * "Ignorant lawmakers" implies that the law was poorly crafted with little subject matter knowledge. This hasn't been my experience in reading it, that the GDPR is well-crafted to make certain unethical business models be infeasible, while avoiding impact to data collection that is essential to a service. * "Made web browsing worse" implies that the current state in which surveillance must make itself known is worse than the previous state in which surveillance could be done silently. I would argue that it is a better state, as knowledge of a hostile act is the first step in preventing it.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        There is nothing to substantiate 1. The law was passed 2. Websites complied with the law 3. Web browsing got worse Has “surveillance capitalism” subsided at all after the GDPR? Did any company announce that it affected their revenue negatively? How many people are saying “we are so glad we have cookie banners everywhere”. I’m also sure that every small business is glad to have to decipher the huge law.
- ben_w 4y ago
  GitHub doesn't show a banner, because it doesn't use any tracking beyond what is necessary for the site to function. Hacker News, ditto.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I understand the nuance of your point much better now.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Please read my comment again. Comment banners are the consequence of regulation No. Hacker News has no banners and no shields is used by Brave, because they do no track you. It's that simple. https://i.imgur.com/1bwZqzs.png https://i.imgur.com/1bwZqzs.png
Teandw 4y ago
He's not sticking up for it. He's pointing out a truth. For example, in countries like the UK, as a website owner I have a legal requirement to get consent. Brave in this example would be forcefully removing the ability for me to get the consent that I legally require. I don't believe in consent banners but that doesn't remove my legal requirements. I've got to stick to the law whether I like it or not.
- evandale 4y ago
  Brave is giving users the ability to automatically say no to your cookie banners. People who use Brave don't want to be tracked and will never consent to it.
  - Teandw 4y ago
    You're making a mass assumption based on your usage of Brave there. Most people I know who downloaded Brave (general people, not the YCombintor/tech power user types) initially got Brave purely because they wanted to earn tokens while browsing. They don't care about the tracking/ad blocking side of things.
    - evandale 4y ago
      Wow in that case Brave is going to be in for a real rude awakening when all their users go back to Chrome so they can see consent banners again.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      That’s funny you say that, because it’s 180 degrees from reality. Normal people don’t know what tokens are, much less care about earning them. Brave is popular for ad blocking.
      - Teandw 4y ago
        Which is funny considering that Brave is a for profit company and nearly all of their money comes from displaying ads. It's popular for blocking a thing that the company needs to survive, while not caring about all the websites they block ads on.

Please read my comment again. Comment banners are the consequence of regulation. I'd rather poke my eye out than stick up for them. What i'm calling out is the dangerous series of events over the past few years which have been rooted in good intent to preserve privacy, that seem to be having the fallout of destroying the web experience. [edit] I can't believe HN has turned into a reddit style downvote brigade so i'll just post my response to the below comments in this edit since i can't reply anymore <shrug> And you've made my point exceedingly clear[1] That pretty much is the ambiguity left up to the whims and fancies of the EU bureaucracy to enforce. According to noyb.eu , the entity behind famous decisions at the CJEU, consent IS INDEED required[2] for ANY cookies to be stored on a users device. It isn't about data collection , if some rando agency or court finds Github or HN use fingerprinting of user preferences (as an example) or are LIKELY TO. . . it is considered a breach. A French agency fined Google and Facebook heavily for merely providing a more complex refusal flow for cookies than the accept flow. [1] https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-million-euros-and-facebook-60-million-euros-non-compliance https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-cnil-fines-google-total-150-m... [2] https://noyb.eu/en/project/cookie-banners#:~:text=Cookie%20banners%20are%20regulated%20under,needs%20to%20obtain%20valid%20consent https://noyb.eu/en/project/cookie-banners#:~:text=Cookie%20b....

matthewmacleod 4y ago
Comment banners are the consequence of regulation. No, consent banners are a consequence of scummy companies trying to vacuum up your personal data for nefarious reasons. They are not required by any regulation, aside from in cases where a company is asking to use your data in non-essential ways.
- scarface74 4y ago
  and yet the companies still exist doing the same thing and web browsing is worse.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    I hear brave fixed it
MereInterest 4y ago
Consent banners are definitively not required by the GDPR. Consent is only required for non-essential collection of user data, or for non-essential processing of user data. For example, Strava would not need consent to collect user GPS location, as that is core to the product that Strava provides to users. Hacker News would require consent to collect user GPS location, as user GPS location is not essential for posting links/comments. In addition, because consent is specific to a use of data and not to the collection of data, Strava would require additional consent in order to use that GPS data for advertising. The GDPR doesn't require consent pop-ups. Companies choose to add consent pop-ups when they exceed the minimum amount of personal data collection.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Well, no matter who you want to blame, it all started with a bunch of ignorant lawmakers who caused a series of events that made web browsing worse.
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    Please substantiate your claims. Your single sentence managed to pack three unsubstantiated claims into it. * "Started with" implies that there were no motivating factors for the GDPR, nor a situation being responded to. Online surveillance is a clear harm being done to users, to which the GDPR is a clear response. * "Ignorant lawmakers" implies that the law was poorly crafted with little subject matter knowledge. This hasn't been my experience in reading it, that the GDPR is well-crafted to make certain unethical business models be infeasible, while avoiding impact to data collection that is essential to a service. * "Made web browsing worse" implies that the current state in which surveillance must make itself known is worse than the previous state in which surveillance could be done silently. I would argue that it is a better state, as knowledge of a hostile act is the first step in preventing it.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      There is nothing to substantiate 1. The law was passed 2. Websites complied with the law 3. Web browsing got worse Has “surveillance capitalism” subsided at all after the GDPR? Did any company announce that it affected their revenue negatively? How many people are saying “we are so glad we have cookie banners everywhere”. I’m also sure that every small business is glad to have to decipher the huge law.
ben_w 4y ago
GitHub doesn't show a banner, because it doesn't use any tracking beyond what is necessary for the site to function. Hacker News, ditto.
imwillofficial 4y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I understand the nuance of your point much better now.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Please read my comment again. Comment banners are the consequence of regulation No. Hacker News has no banners and no shields is used by Brave, because they do no track you. It's that simple. https://i.imgur.com/1bwZqzs.png https://i.imgur.com/1bwZqzs.png

Teandw 4y ago

He's not sticking up for it. He's pointing out a truth. For example, in countries like the UK, as a website owner I have a legal requirement to get consent. Brave in this example would be forcefully removing the ability for me to get the consent that I legally require. I don't believe in consent banners but that doesn't remove my legal requirements. I've got to stick to the law whether I like it or not.

evandale 4y ago
Brave is giving users the ability to automatically say no to your cookie banners. People who use Brave don't want to be tracked and will never consent to it.
- Teandw 4y ago
  You're making a mass assumption based on your usage of Brave there. Most people I know who downloaded Brave (general people, not the YCombintor/tech power user types) initially got Brave purely because they wanted to earn tokens while browsing. They don't care about the tracking/ad blocking side of things.
  - evandale 4y ago
    Wow in that case Brave is going to be in for a real rude awakening when all their users go back to Chrome so they can see consent banners again.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    That’s funny you say that, because it’s 180 degrees from reality. Normal people don’t know what tokens are, much less care about earning them. Brave is popular for ad blocking.
    - Teandw 4y ago
      Which is funny considering that Brave is a for profit company and nearly all of their money comes from displaying ads. It's popular for blocking a thing that the company needs to survive, while not caring about all the websites they block ads on.