9 ms·

Yes each time we see these cookie warnings, we admire a system that does so much to our benefit

by paulsutter 3y ago

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
Just install some browser extension that automatically refuses them.
- fmajid 3y ago
  The next step for the EU is Global Privacy Control, which is basically the old Do-Not_track header, but legally enforceable this time (the EU is not alone in this, it's already the law in California). If your browser sends that header, the website will have to not show you a cookie popup and treat it as a "Reject All" instead.
troupo 3y ago
Nothing in the law requires those cookie banners. If you don't agree, you can quote to me the exact passage in the GDPR where it talks about cookies, banners, or browsers. Or you can read what Github has to say about this: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
- bengale 3y ago
  This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. The more of this they layer on the more ordinary people get irritated by the EU. This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. European here. I squarely blame the business, and often turn back when hit by a particularly obnoxious banner. > This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. Nah, that's stupid. The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor. It just says that if you want to sell bananas labelled as "class A" they can't be bent into a pretzel. Because go figure, when a restaurant buys what is advertised as high quality produce, they don't want to get a shipment full of ugly stuff that doesn't look good on the plate. But you absolutely can sell weird, ugly but still edible bananas. They just have to be described properly. That's again, what the article is speaking about here. > If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it. Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it.
    - bengale 3y ago
      > European here. I squarely blame the business, and often turn back when hit by a particularly obnoxious banner. You're in the minority. Most people will not think every business is responsible for that, they'll assume they're being forced into it. > The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor. Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true. > Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it. Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point.
      - dale_glass 3y ago
        > You're in the minority. Most people will not think every business is responsible for that, they'll assume they're being forced into it. They've gotten far less annoying as of late, in good part because the EU made it clear annoying the user into acceptance isn't going to fly. But early on, when websites had the great idea to make me opt out of 78 "partners" one by one, my annoyance was not at the EU, but at the website forcing me to click 78 checkboxes, and a reaction of "WTF? Why are 78 companies being informed I'm reading an article?" > Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true. Did you know the US also has equivalent banana regulations? > Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point. Yeah, to their detriment to the point that it killed pretty much every other eurosceptic movement, and apparently they're not that happy with Brexit anymore themselves either.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  The cookie law predates the GDPR by several years. See discussion at https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/1348222/breathtakingly-stupid-eu-cookie-law-passes https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/1348222/breathtaking... for instance
  - troupo 3y ago
    Even that law (which got updated along to align with GDPR IIRC) does't require the cookie banners that the industry has barfed up.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Can you tell that to these guys: https://www.europa.eu https://www.europa.eu That website basically has an infinite budget and doesn't have to make a single cent. It is also for the group that should have the best understanding of the law. Yet they still give you the cookie popup.
  - gryn 3y ago
    has to disable ublock to see it. if you link the link and see what they do with them basically they use cookies for analytics, tracking/surveying site usage, user auth, dupral, moodle, and 3rd parties websites like youtube, google, facebook, etc. why do you think a banner should not be in this case ? devs are lazy they aren't going to recreate all the service inhouse from scratch. I don't think the dev team has infinite budget either.
  - troupo 3y ago
    That cookie popup is within the law: - it offers an explanations that cookies are used, and offers a link to read why - it offers a way to opt out that is as easy as the way to opt-in - it doesn't prevent the site from functioning However, I agree that they shouldn't require non-essential cookies to begin with.
- input_sh 3y ago
  I don't agree, but I can't quote GDPR because it's much older than GDPR. It's from a 2002 ePrivacy Directive, which is still in force, but on its way out and therefore less heavily enforced. ePrivacy Regulation is supposed to eventually deprecate it. The initial idea was for both GDPR and ePR to be enforced from the same date, but that obviously hasn't happened.
  - troupo 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603540
    - input_sh 3y ago
      > Even that law (which got updated along to align with GDPR IIRC) does't require the cookie banners that the industry has barfed up. Yeah it does[0], and no it didn't get updated. ePrivacy Regulation which was supposed to make it deprecated was never voted on. [0] "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections. The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose."
      - troupo 3y ago
p_l 3y ago
Which is precisely why those, often non-compliant if not outright illegal, warnings exist. Their purpose is to push you towards working against your own privacy.
ragebol 3y ago
The cookie warnings are a result of companies not taking a pretty obvious hint: don't do tracking.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
  Any lawmaker with an ounce of foresight would have recognized the pervasive cookie banners as the logical consequence of the law. If you give companies an easy copy-and-paste way to get around a single regional law then they will do the quickest dumbest thing possible to get what they want no matter who the visitor is and where they're located. The EU laws are poorly conceived, poorly written, and now we all have to live with them. They can make privacy laws, but they need to make them better. I truly believe that the EU ruined the web for everyone with their haphazard legislation. And now they're trying to do it again with AI but thankfully they're just getting blocked now instead of everyone trying to comply.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Since you seem to know so much about EU law, can you show me where exactly GDPR requires cookie banners. Or talks about cookies, banners, or even browsers?
    - dageshi 3y ago
      I don't know, I can say the EU uses them itself... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... If that site needs a cookie banner I'm guessing nearly all sites do.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > I don't know Exactly. And this doesn't surprise me. The law states: if you collect more data than is strictly required for your site[1] to function and/or send user data to third parties, you have to: - tell the users about it - let the users to opt out, where opt out must be as easy as opt in - if the users opt out, the site[1] must continue working So yes, that site does send some extra data to third-parties, and informs the user about it. And lets the user know about it. IMO it shouldn't use third-party services, but oh well. These days it's a source of my constant amazement that 8 years after its publication the people who complain about GDPR the most have not had even the tiniest attempt to read anything about it or understand anything about it. [1] I simplified this to sites. GDPR is General Data Protection Regulation. All this equally applies to sites, apps, offline businesses, governments etc. To cookies, local storage, offline paper documents, tape records, cloud storage etc. 8 years. The law has been around for 8 years. It has been enforced for 6. It takes about half an hour to read the most relevant parts of it (chapters 1—5). An hour if you're not too familiar with legalese. And yet... "I don't know".
yourusername 3y ago
I actually like them. It's eye opening when a a website wants to share your data with their 283 partners.
- mk89 3y ago
  283? You're talking about a personal blog, right? I have seen 500+. Which is like wtf is going on. I can't even name 500+ companies or websites, who the hell are these companies?
  - isoprophlex 3y ago
    My personal best: 1609. We care about your privacy! https://www.neverbeclever.org/blog/we-care-about-your-privacy/ https://www.neverbeclever.org/blog/we-care-about-your-privac...
    - Phemist 3y ago
      Obviously they do care, in the sense that they want to dissolve any remaining semblance of it.
      - Phemist 3y ago
        And while searching to confirm the meaning of the word `semblance`, I found that the Cambridge Dictionary needs to up their game at only 775 partners. https://imgur.com/a/arX6Z6S https://imgur.com/a/arX6Z6S
  - dspillett 3y ago
    I hit back instantly when I see the Admiral logo. That network IIRC claims >1,500 partners. And last time I bothered looking even though there is a few “no to all” checkboxes you still needed to individually object to “legitimate interest”¹ for most of the companies. -- [1] which I read as “we see you and your privacy preferences, but fuck you and your preferences we want to stalk you anyway”
    - 3y ago
Jochim 3y ago
It's a wonderful reminder of who is trying to spy on me.
addicted 3y ago
Now consider an alternative website which does not track you and therefore does not have to show a cookie warning each time. Even in its worst form, the cookie warning is giving a significant material advantage to the non tracking website over the tracking website, which without the cookie warning the 2 websites would have appeared exactly the same to all users.
- hef19898 3y ago
  But cookie banner seriously hurt the big tech sector in delivering better persobalized adds! It prevebts innovation! /s
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Judging by the adverts they show me, Facebook thinks I'm originally from a small city in Florida, that I moved from the US to the UK and want to give up my US citizenship for tax purposes, that now live in specifically both Cambridge and Waterlooville even though those are opposite sides of London, that I own a potentially dangerous breed of dog that the UK just banned, and that I'm a hermaphrodite in need of both a custom-fitted bra and dick pills. None of those are accurate. The only adverts they've shown which are relevant to my interests are for Babbel, except I already had that years before they started showing me the ads.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      So, you are telling me that you live two seperate and secret lives to hide the fact you own illegal dogs? In all seriousness so, for all the effort and data companies like facebook have, the product, targeted ads, is just bad. And sometimes hilariously so.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Even if I owned a dog, which I don't, UK law is irrelevant because I live in Berlin.
kerkeslager 3y ago
There are two systems at play when you see a cookie warning: 1. Businesses trying to violate your privacy. 2. A government trying to protect you from said businesses. Either of these entities could avoid the cookie warning, but there are very different reasons why they do not.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  If you use government websites within EU countries, most of them have cookie warnings. And a large part of them also use dark patterns to "forget" that you selected "only necessary" cookies each time you visit.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    So what is your conclusion? "It's a bad law"? Government websites breaking GDPR is an important thing to know, in order to fight against it.
    - joenot443 3y ago
      I think it's a law with good intentions which was horribly implemented for which now the rest of the world will be feeling the effects for decades. I think there are very, very few people who are earnestly proud of the work the EU did with this regulation every time they waste finite brain cycles on yet another cookie banner. I don't really know why Europeans use this as an example of their system of governance working as hoped.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        It's possible that the EU thought: "This is likely enough to end cookie tracking. Surely no company would want to put their users through horrible consent UX just to retain their tracking!" ...and were wrong about just how far companies would be willing to abuse their user's experience, either because of the benefits of tracking, or purely out of malicious compliance. The anticipated effect of requiring consent is that by forcing companies to shine a flashlight on their own bad behavior, they will instead choose to correct their behavior. That didn't end up happening in practice.
bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
The cookie warning regulation is bad, but only mildly so.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  There's no regulation that mentions cookie warnings.
CalRobert 3y ago
They should be opt-in though, not opt-out. I believe the current pattern is illegal, but unenforced.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
I see a lot of people from the US rail hard against loss of privacy, but when you get protections it's bad? Obviously it's a flawed implementation and the powers that be fought hard against an automated flag, but that's what we should be fighting for to fix it.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
If we're talking about _systems_ then there's a lot more to GDPR than this tired, facile soundbite about "cookie banners". Yes, GDPR is absolutely beneficial to citizens. And quite often in invisible ways, since e.g. we never hear about the breach of customer data that didn't happen.
guappa 3y ago
There will eventually be a court case that will establish the DNT header as "no" and every website showing a popup will be in violation. Actually most popups are already in violation since there needs to be a "no to all" option. Lots of them get fined, but there's just so many. They should probably make the fine more like: "your domain goes down for 2 months" to be taken more seriously.
davidmurdoch 3y ago
I've learned to never attack the cookie banner here on HN. EU citizens seem to absolutely adore them here.
- immibis 3y ago
  No, it's just counterproductive to attack warning signs instead of attacking the thing they are warning you about.
  - davidmurdoch 3y ago
    See?
    - doktrin 3y ago
      > See? I see you being deliberately antagonistic and strawmanning an opinion you disagree with.
      - davidmurdoch 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - immibis 3y ago
        I will never understand "I said $dumb_thing and the fact everyone downvoted me for saying $dumb_thing proves that $dumb_thing is right!"
        davidmurdoch 3y ago
        That's the same logic cookie banner lovers are using in this very post. I am just matching that energy. Have you really not noticed how defensive and antagonistic cookie banner supporters become when people say anything negative about it?
        kys_now 3y ago
        Don’t bully them, they’re just a little slow in the head.
Fischgericht 3y ago
Yes, the regulation had loop-holes and the EU underestimated the creativity of companies to try to use those loop-holes. The most annoying thing were the dark patterns used - default being "allow all cookies", and then making sure that rejecting cookies took you spending 10 minutes in sub-menus. That loop-hole has now been closed. The correct way to get rid of cookie banners is businesses using cookies in a responsible fashion, and sooner or later this is going to happen. Also, your framing misses one important point: If I have the choice between mildly frustrating cookie banners that raise awareness for the situation and simply having all your data sent to 500 advertising "partners" the moment you enter a website, like it is in the US, I choose the mildly frustrating cookie banners. Freedom does come at a cost. Do not blame regulators for evil forces trying to circumvent those regulations. It's what the article you are commenting on is all about. Go (re-)read it.
NoGravitas 3y ago
Cookie banners are largely a form of malicious compliance.
- capr 3y ago
  "malicious compliance", an euphemism is straight out of 1984
ransom1538 3y ago
Boss: "Oh, also, add those cookie warnings for the gdpr". Me: "No. We are not in the EU. I refuse. I also refuse to abide by Congolese law or Peruvian Navy doctrines. If I break Myanmar PII laws, I will take my chances. EU is no better than anyone else, pushing their crappy laws, I refuse to care about." Boss: "Ok! Np."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
toasterlovin 3y ago
In a delicious bit of irony, there is a very large, peculiarly villainous American company whose website has never shown me a cookie pop up…
datenwolf 3y ago
Strictly speaking, those fat Cookie banners are unlawful under the regulation of the GDPR; the GDPR mandates that a site must not behave functionally different given consent or not, as long as the functionality is not related to a specific user. Unfortunately there are only so many GDPR compliance officers around, and they have to focus on the bigger fish to fry.
yndoendo 3y ago
This is just a small example between the difference of EU and USA. Here is another. Work for a company that made a machine used in automation. Designed around US regulations it had a clamping force of 1600 N, same biting force as an adult panda. This thing can take off fingers and arms. Only know about the 1600 N because it was risk assessed for EU market. After a year of design changes. Moved to fail-safe motors and changed order of operation. The machine no longer leaves someone limbless, it cannot take off a fingernail. EU requires safety to be engineered into the product while USA allows for deforming machine operators and victim blaming when something goes wrong. Company has discontinued the USA model and only manufacturers the EU model. EU regulations can help USA citizens when our politicians reject good regulations for personal profit.
theptip 3y ago
A bit of a cherry-pick, no? You can’t just look at one bad thing that happened, you need to weigh the good and bad that comes with a particular policy stance. Concretely in this case it seems quite relevant to include GDPR, which consumers seem pretty happy about, and which many Americans look enviously at while their data is slurped up without recourse by credit bureaus and data brokers.

Yes each time we see these cookie warnings, we admire a system that does so much to our benefit

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago

Just install some browser extension that automatically refuses them.

fmajid 3y ago
The next step for the EU is Global Privacy Control, which is basically the old Do-Not_track header, but legally enforceable this time (the EU is not alone in this, it's already the law in California). If your browser sends that header, the website will have to not show you a cookie popup and treat it as a "Reject All" instead.

troupo 3y ago

Nothing in the law requires those cookie banners. If you don't agree, you can quote to me the exact passage in the GDPR where it talks about cookies, banners, or browsers. Or you can read what Github has to say about this: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/

bengale 3y ago
This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. The more of this they layer on the more ordinary people get irritated by the EU. This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > This is the exact problem though, noone really cares what the law says, they care that now they have annoying cookie banners. They don't blame the businesses for this; they blame the EU. European here. I squarely blame the business, and often turn back when hit by a particularly obnoxious banner. > This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more. Nah, that's stupid. The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor. It just says that if you want to sell bananas labelled as "class A" they can't be bent into a pretzel. Because go figure, when a restaurant buys what is advertised as high quality produce, they don't want to get a shipment full of ugly stuff that doesn't look good on the plate. But you absolutely can sell weird, ugly but still edible bananas. They just have to be described properly. That's again, what the article is speaking about here. > If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it. Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it.
  - bengale 3y ago
    > European here. I squarely blame the business, and often turn back when hit by a particularly obnoxious banner. You're in the minority. Most people will not think every business is responsible for that, they'll assume they're being forced into it. > The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor. Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true. > Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it. Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > You're in the minority. Most people will not think every business is responsible for that, they'll assume they're being forced into it. They've gotten far less annoying as of late, in good part because the EU made it clear annoying the user into acceptance isn't going to fly. But early on, when websites had the great idea to make me opt out of 78 "partners" one by one, my annoyance was not at the EU, but at the website forcing me to click 78 checkboxes, and a reaction of "WTF? Why are 78 companies being informed I'm reading an article?" > Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true. Did you know the US also has equivalent banana regulations? > Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point. Yeah, to their detriment to the point that it killed pretty much every other eurosceptic movement, and apparently they're not that happy with Brexit anymore themselves either.
CalRobert 3y ago
The cookie law predates the GDPR by several years. See discussion at https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/1348222/breathtakingly-stupid-eu-cookie-law-passes https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/1348222/breathtaking... for instance
- troupo 3y ago
  Even that law (which got updated along to align with GDPR IIRC) does't require the cookie banners that the industry has barfed up.
Aerroon 3y ago
Can you tell that to these guys: https://www.europa.eu https://www.europa.eu That website basically has an infinite budget and doesn't have to make a single cent. It is also for the group that should have the best understanding of the law. Yet they still give you the cookie popup.
- gryn 3y ago
  has to disable ublock to see it. if you link the link and see what they do with them basically they use cookies for analytics, tracking/surveying site usage, user auth, dupral, moodle, and 3rd parties websites like youtube, google, facebook, etc. why do you think a banner should not be in this case ? devs are lazy they aren't going to recreate all the service inhouse from scratch. I don't think the dev team has infinite budget either.
- troupo 3y ago
  That cookie popup is within the law: - it offers an explanations that cookies are used, and offers a link to read why - it offers a way to opt out that is as easy as the way to opt-in - it doesn't prevent the site from functioning However, I agree that they shouldn't require non-essential cookies to begin with.
input_sh 3y ago
I don't agree, but I can't quote GDPR because it's much older than GDPR. It's from a 2002 ePrivacy Directive, which is still in force, but on its way out and therefore less heavily enforced. ePrivacy Regulation is supposed to eventually deprecate it. The initial idea was for both GDPR and ePR to be enforced from the same date, but that obviously hasn't happened.
- troupo 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603540
  - input_sh 3y ago
    > Even that law (which got updated along to align with GDPR IIRC) does't require the cookie banners that the industry has barfed up. Yeah it does[0], and no it didn't get updated. ePrivacy Regulation which was supposed to make it deprecated was never voted on. [0] "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections. The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose."
    - troupo 3y ago

p_l 3y ago

Which is precisely why those, often non-compliant if not outright illegal, warnings exist. Their purpose is to push you towards working against your own privacy.

ragebol 3y ago

The cookie warnings are a result of companies not taking a pretty obvious hint: don't do tracking.

VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
Any lawmaker with an ounce of foresight would have recognized the pervasive cookie banners as the logical consequence of the law. If you give companies an easy copy-and-paste way to get around a single regional law then they will do the quickest dumbest thing possible to get what they want no matter who the visitor is and where they're located. The EU laws are poorly conceived, poorly written, and now we all have to live with them. They can make privacy laws, but they need to make them better. I truly believe that the EU ruined the web for everyone with their haphazard legislation. And now they're trying to do it again with AI but thankfully they're just getting blocked now instead of everyone trying to comply.
- troupo 3y ago
  Since you seem to know so much about EU law, can you show me where exactly GDPR requires cookie banners. Or talks about cookies, banners, or even browsers?
  - dageshi 3y ago
    I don't know, I can say the EU uses them itself... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... If that site needs a cookie banner I'm guessing nearly all sites do.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > I don't know Exactly. And this doesn't surprise me. The law states: if you collect more data than is strictly required for your site[1] to function and/or send user data to third parties, you have to: - tell the users about it - let the users to opt out, where opt out must be as easy as opt in - if the users opt out, the site[1] must continue working So yes, that site does send some extra data to third-parties, and informs the user about it. And lets the user know about it. IMO it shouldn't use third-party services, but oh well. These days it's a source of my constant amazement that 8 years after its publication the people who complain about GDPR the most have not had even the tiniest attempt to read anything about it or understand anything about it. [1] I simplified this to sites. GDPR is General Data Protection Regulation. All this equally applies to sites, apps, offline businesses, governments etc. To cookies, local storage, offline paper documents, tape records, cloud storage etc. 8 years. The law has been around for 8 years. It has been enforced for 6. It takes about half an hour to read the most relevant parts of it (chapters 1—5). An hour if you're not too familiar with legalese. And yet... "I don't know".

yourusername 3y ago

I actually like them. It's eye opening when a a website wants to share your data with their 283 partners.

mk89 3y ago
283? You're talking about a personal blog, right? I have seen 500+. Which is like wtf is going on. I can't even name 500+ companies or websites, who the hell are these companies?
- isoprophlex 3y ago
  My personal best: 1609. We care about your privacy! https://www.neverbeclever.org/blog/we-care-about-your-privacy/ https://www.neverbeclever.org/blog/we-care-about-your-privac...
  - Phemist 3y ago
    Obviously they do care, in the sense that they want to dissolve any remaining semblance of it.
    - Phemist 3y ago
      And while searching to confirm the meaning of the word `semblance`, I found that the Cambridge Dictionary needs to up their game at only 775 partners. https://imgur.com/a/arX6Z6S https://imgur.com/a/arX6Z6S
- dspillett 3y ago
  I hit back instantly when I see the Admiral logo. That network IIRC claims >1,500 partners. And last time I bothered looking even though there is a few “no to all” checkboxes you still needed to individually object to “legitimate interest”¹ for most of the companies. -- [1] which I read as “we see you and your privacy preferences, but fuck you and your preferences we want to stalk you anyway”
  - 3y ago

Jochim 3y ago

It's a wonderful reminder of who is trying to spy on me.

addicted 3y ago

Now consider an alternative website which does not track you and therefore does not have to show a cookie warning each time. Even in its worst form, the cookie warning is giving a significant material advantage to the non tracking website over the tracking website, which without the cookie warning the 2 websites would have appeared exactly the same to all users.

hef19898 3y ago
But cookie banner seriously hurt the big tech sector in delivering better persobalized adds! It prevebts innovation! /s
- ben_w 3y ago
  Judging by the adverts they show me, Facebook thinks I'm originally from a small city in Florida, that I moved from the US to the UK and want to give up my US citizenship for tax purposes, that now live in specifically both Cambridge and Waterlooville even though those are opposite sides of London, that I own a potentially dangerous breed of dog that the UK just banned, and that I'm a hermaphrodite in need of both a custom-fitted bra and dick pills. None of those are accurate. The only adverts they've shown which are relevant to my interests are for Babbel, except I already had that years before they started showing me the ads.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    So, you are telling me that you live two seperate and secret lives to hide the fact you own illegal dogs? In all seriousness so, for all the effort and data companies like facebook have, the product, targeted ads, is just bad. And sometimes hilariously so.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Even if I owned a dog, which I don't, UK law is irrelevant because I live in Berlin.

kerkeslager 3y ago

There are two systems at play when you see a cookie warning: 1. Businesses trying to violate your privacy. 2. A government trying to protect you from said businesses. Either of these entities could avoid the cookie warning, but there are very different reasons why they do not.

carlosjobim 3y ago
If you use government websites within EU countries, most of them have cookie warnings. And a large part of them also use dark patterns to "forget" that you selected "only necessary" cookies each time you visit.
- fsflover 3y ago
  So what is your conclusion? "It's a bad law"? Government websites breaking GDPR is an important thing to know, in order to fight against it.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    I think it's a law with good intentions which was horribly implemented for which now the rest of the world will be feeling the effects for decades. I think there are very, very few people who are earnestly proud of the work the EU did with this regulation every time they waste finite brain cycles on yet another cookie banner. I don't really know why Europeans use this as an example of their system of governance working as hoped.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      It's possible that the EU thought: "This is likely enough to end cookie tracking. Surely no company would want to put their users through horrible consent UX just to retain their tracking!" ...and were wrong about just how far companies would be willing to abuse their user's experience, either because of the benefits of tracking, or purely out of malicious compliance. The anticipated effect of requiring consent is that by forcing companies to shine a flashlight on their own bad behavior, they will instead choose to correct their behavior. That didn't end up happening in practice.

bdd8f1df777b 3y ago

The cookie warning regulation is bad, but only mildly so.

denton-scratch 3y ago
There's no regulation that mentions cookie warnings.

CalRobert 3y ago

They should be opt-in though, not opt-out. I believe the current pattern is illegal, but unenforced.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

I see a lot of people from the US rail hard against loss of privacy, but when you get protections it's bad? Obviously it's a flawed implementation and the powers that be fought hard against an automated flag, but that's what we should be fighting for to fix it.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

If we're talking about _systems_ then there's a lot more to GDPR than this tired, facile soundbite about "cookie banners". Yes, GDPR is absolutely beneficial to citizens. And quite often in invisible ways, since e.g. we never hear about the breach of customer data that didn't happen.

guappa 3y ago

There will eventually be a court case that will establish the DNT header as "no" and every website showing a popup will be in violation. Actually most popups are already in violation since there needs to be a "no to all" option. Lots of them get fined, but there's just so many. They should probably make the fine more like: "your domain goes down for 2 months" to be taken more seriously.

davidmurdoch 3y ago

I've learned to never attack the cookie banner here on HN. EU citizens seem to absolutely adore them here.

immibis 3y ago
No, it's just counterproductive to attack warning signs instead of attacking the thing they are warning you about.
- davidmurdoch 3y ago
  See?
  - doktrin 3y ago
    > See? I see you being deliberately antagonistic and strawmanning an opinion you disagree with.
    - davidmurdoch 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - immibis 3y ago
      I will never understand "I said $dumb_thing and the fact everyone downvoted me for saying $dumb_thing proves that $dumb_thing is right!"
      - davidmurdoch 3y ago
        That's the same logic cookie banner lovers are using in this very post. I am just matching that energy. Have you really not noticed how defensive and antagonistic cookie banner supporters become when people say anything negative about it?
      - kys_now 3y ago
        Don’t bully them, they’re just a little slow in the head.

Fischgericht 3y ago

Yes, the regulation had loop-holes and the EU underestimated the creativity of companies to try to use those loop-holes. The most annoying thing were the dark patterns used - default being "allow all cookies", and then making sure that rejecting cookies took you spending 10 minutes in sub-menus. That loop-hole has now been closed. The correct way to get rid of cookie banners is businesses using cookies in a responsible fashion, and sooner or later this is going to happen. Also, your framing misses one important point: If I have the choice between mildly frustrating cookie banners that raise awareness for the situation and simply having all your data sent to 500 advertising "partners" the moment you enter a website, like it is in the US, I choose the mildly frustrating cookie banners. Freedom does come at a cost. Do not blame regulators for evil forces trying to circumvent those regulations. It's what the article you are commenting on is all about. Go (re-)read it.

NoGravitas 3y ago

Cookie banners are largely a form of malicious compliance.

capr 3y ago
"malicious compliance", an euphemism is straight out of 1984

ransom1538 3y ago

Boss: "Oh, also, add those cookie warnings for the gdpr". Me: "No. We are not in the EU. I refuse. I also refuse to abide by Congolese law or Peruvian Navy doctrines. If I break Myanmar PII laws, I will take my chances. EU is no better than anyone else, pushing their crappy laws, I refuse to care about." Boss: "Ok! Np."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

toasterlovin 3y ago

In a delicious bit of irony, there is a very large, peculiarly villainous American company whose website has never shown me a cookie pop up…

datenwolf 3y ago

Strictly speaking, those fat Cookie banners are unlawful under the regulation of the GDPR; the GDPR mandates that a site must not behave functionally different given consent or not, as long as the functionality is not related to a specific user. Unfortunately there are only so many GDPR compliance officers around, and they have to focus on the bigger fish to fry.

yndoendo 3y ago

This is just a small example between the difference of EU and USA. Here is another. Work for a company that made a machine used in automation. Designed around US regulations it had a clamping force of 1600 N, same biting force as an adult panda. This thing can take off fingers and arms. Only know about the 1600 N because it was risk assessed for EU market. After a year of design changes. Moved to fail-safe motors and changed order of operation. The machine no longer leaves someone limbless, it cannot take off a fingernail. EU requires safety to be engineered into the product while USA allows for deforming machine operators and victim blaming when something goes wrong. Company has discontinued the USA model and only manufacturers the EU model. EU regulations can help USA citizens when our politicians reject good regulations for personal profit.

theptip 3y ago

A bit of a cherry-pick, no? You can’t just look at one bad thing that happened, you need to weigh the good and bad that comes with a particular policy stance. Concretely in this case it seems quite relevant to include GDPR, which consumers seem pretty happy about, and which many Americans look enviously at while their data is slurped up without recourse by credit bureaus and data brokers.