4 ms·
Interesting. I like this. No need for a cookie banner.
by lxe 2y ago
Interesting. I like this. No need for a cookie banner.
- f_devd 2y agoI mean, if they somehow ported google analytics (or some other brokered PII network) I think they technically would need consent and disclosure.
- organsnyder 2y agoThey'd only need a cookie banner if they somehow could put a cookie on your machine using SSH. Depending on how they're using any personal data you provide, they likely wouldn't need consent: for instance, if they use the personal data you provide to ship you your order, they don't need to ask (you supplied your information for the express purpose of placing an order, after all). However, if they want to do more with that data, they'd need consent.
- paxys 2y agoBut what if I want coffee and a cookie?
- joelfried 2y agoCan I interest you in this delicious cup of Java?
- tonymet 2y agothey get your ssh public key which is a unique identifier so that should be disclosed.
- paxys 2y agoIf they aren't logging it then there's nothing to disclose.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoIt's a public key. You should operate under the assumption that anyone could have it at any time.
- riffic 2y agoit's a dessert topping and a floor wax
- Scarblac 2y agoStill, it identifies you so it can be used to track you over visits to many different stores-over-ssh, just like third party cookies.
- safdskljlkj 2y agoIf IIS had won the server wars, your MOTD could give you targeted ads based on exactly this. Oh, the innovation!
- dezren39 2y agoit's a us company they don't need a cookie banner anyways
- quesera 2y agoBe careful. If you have California customers you need to worry about California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code section 630, et seq. (“CIPA”). It's not clear that it applies to the web! But predatory lawyers will come after you for it, if you are big enough and don't have a cookie banner.
- Jerrrry 2y ago>No need for a cookie banner. there was never a need
- atq2119 2y agoThere is never a good reason for cookie banners, by definition. The rule is that if you have a good reason for your cookies (i.e., basically one that isn't user-hostile), you have nothing to worry about and don't need a cookie banner. It's only when you engage in user-hostile practices, such as tracking, that you need to ask for consent. I'm being sightly snarky, but that's really the essence of it.
- s__s 2y agoVery few people understand the law and just opt to defensively throw a cookie banner up on the site. Usually a 3rd party service. At this point I’ve even had clients ask for it, thinking it makes their site more professional and credible, since everyone else does it.
- quesera 2y agoYou are not wrong. But beware the predatory lawyers who will come after you for ostensible violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code section 630, et seq. (“CIPA”). One company I work with received multiple arbitration demands (claimed "privacy" damages in excess of $25000 each, helpfully offered to settle for $5000 each!). And this company didn't even set any cookies or run any 3P tracking on their site! Their (famous-you-know-them, expensive, California-based) lawyers said "yes, we are seeing this more and more. We can fight and win for $200K, or you can pay the $50K of claims outstanding and add a banner to your site". Their CEO chose the less-expensive option. :-/
- viraptor 2y agoDoes the law even matter in this case? If the idea was to make you convinced you'd spend $200k to win a bogus case, you can be sued for literally anything...
- quesera 2y agoThis is true, but CIPA is the law that is being exploited for its ambiguous applicability. There are lawyers out there actively targeting companies who legitimately believe they do not need a cookie banner. They seek out customers of the company ("Are you now, or have you been, a customer of X? You may be the victim of Y/eligible for legal settlement Z/etc.") They may even identify the corporate targets, and recruit new customers for their purpose. And the way to avoid the issue completely is to add a stupid, superfluous, cookie banner. (Which, in the height of absurdity, requires adding a cookie). It was a painful and semi-expensive lesson for this small company. And their expensive/prominent lawyers say they are seeing the problem increasing. (I asked why they didn't take the time to warn their clients, but did not get a satisfactory answer). So it's worth a thought and a note when the idea of not needing a cookie banner comes up.