4 ms·

> Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it. The EU is exactly to blame for it. The activity isn't illegal, and the EU didn't make it ill

> Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it. The EU is exactly to blame for it. The activity isn't illegal, and the EU didn't make it illegal. What the *EU did* was make it so that companies engaging in that legal activity now had to disclose it in some way, and thee cookie popups are the best way to do that. It's ridiculous to try and say the EU isn't to blame when they introduced and approved the legislation directly responsible for the popups.

troupo 2y ago
EU: Don't track users, don't obtain vast amounts of data on users, don't sell that data to third parties. If you you do, ask users for informed consent. Industry: we hear you. Here's "informed consent" form riddled with dark patterns because we believe that all data is ours by God's decree, and our 15 000 "partners" agree with us ... HN: The EU is to blame for this
- krick 2y ago
  This is correct. However, I always thought that legislation is pretty stupid. It isn't exactly comparable to alcohol/tobacco warnings. Actually, I always thought they are stupid too, but at least they can count as an "informed nonsent", since it's pretty clear, what's the harm they are taking about. Cookies, on the other hand... Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. First off, I know everybody uses cookies, and almost everybody uses some trackers. Second, even me, somewhat informed user, I don't really understand, what is that information they are sharing with third parties, and why should I care. I feel kinda stupid when I bother to press "reject all". Like, does it even matter, what I choose? Wouldn't they do it anyway, whatever they do? Then, I use ublock and I hope it helps. If it doesn't, well, tough luck, but what do I do? I do want to read that one paragraph from the medium/NYT article I found on Google, despite how much I hate them. I won't stop using the internet because of... whatever this is. I can only imagine, what it's like for average user, who is, let's be honest, pretty clueless. I guess for them it is indeed the EU who is too blame here. GDPR is more useful, but still I'm not sure if it really helps. Like, I remember someone complaining that before GDPR you could bulk-download gpx files from Strava, and now you can only request .fit files, that are supposed to containt more data, but really aren't that useful for most. Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors (especially Garmin, god I hate them so much). They are successfully making life harder for you, because they don't want it to be easy to get your own data back. And who is to stop them? Maybe it's a matter of time, I don't know, but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to.
  - latexr 2y ago
    The cookie law and GDPR are often conflated, but they are different things. It doesn’t help that websites engage in malicious compliance, thus making everything more confusing. I’ll leave you with two links. The first explains which kinds of cookies do not require consent. You’ll see the list is pretty reasonable. The second is to noyb, a non-profit fighting for privacy (the name means “none of your business”), who has been doing good work thanks to the GDPR. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. Indeed, and that's exactly what the industry wants. Show me where exactly GDPR mandates the cookie dialogues. Or ePrivacy Directive for that matter. > Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors Yes. And yet you somehow twist it to blame GDPR > but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to. Yea. Enforcement has been sadly lacking
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  What would the 'light' pattern be in this case, where the business wants to comply with regulation and maximize profit?
  - latexr 2y ago
    Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine).
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.
      - latexr 2y ago
        What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.
        ruthmarx 2y ago
        > What are you on about? Exactly what you say here: > the two times I replied to you responding to someone else --- > Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. I find that very odd, not to pay attention to who you are replying to, but OK. > quite the persecution complex. Nah. It's a pretty common behavior or 'pattern' that some people who feel strongly about a position will reply to other child comments by a person they are debating with. I find it frustrating because it normally leads to a lot of redundancy, with the same points being repeated in multiple places, just wasting time. I mistakenly thought that's what you were doing. I apologize.
latexr 2y ago
> and thee cookie popups are the best way to do that. No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting (we did it forever before the internet) and you do not need cookie warnings if your cookies aren’t invasive. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... > The activity isn't illegal, and the EU didn't make it illegal. Indeed that is a shame. If only.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting You are deliberately missing the point and shifting the goalposts. You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? There are so many more important things business should voluntarily abstain from by that reasoning. No, as long as the behavior remains legal, a business has every right to engage in such activity. The only reason the cookie popups are a thing is because the **EU** mandated some sort of notification which basically mapped to these popups. So it's the EU to lame. No question about it. A business engaging in legal activity is not to blame, since it's the regulations around that activity and not the businesses practicing the activity that are the topic of discussion here. Stop shifting the buck. It's so incredibly dishonest.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. Yes indeed, why would businesses do that voluntarily? The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, they are forced by law. In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st... Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels and would prefer there to be none? I mean, you do you, but please don’t accuse others of goal shifting and dishonesty simply because you misunderstood an argument. My position has remained consistent, I gave the poison example (which you chose to ignore) in the first post.
eska 2y ago
It is in fact illegal until the user opts into it. The company has to assume no as an answer until then.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  Sure, hence the popups mandated by EU regulation.

troupo 2y ago

EU: Don't track users, don't obtain vast amounts of data on users, don't sell that data to third parties. If you you do, ask users for informed consent. Industry: we hear you. Here's "informed consent" form riddled with dark patterns because we believe that all data is ours by God's decree, and our 15 000 "partners" agree with us ... HN: The EU is to blame for this

krick 2y ago
This is correct. However, I always thought that legislation is pretty stupid. It isn't exactly comparable to alcohol/tobacco warnings. Actually, I always thought they are stupid too, but at least they can count as an "informed nonsent", since it's pretty clear, what's the harm they are taking about. Cookies, on the other hand... Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. First off, I know everybody uses cookies, and almost everybody uses some trackers. Second, even me, somewhat informed user, I don't really understand, what is that information they are sharing with third parties, and why should I care. I feel kinda stupid when I bother to press "reject all". Like, does it even matter, what I choose? Wouldn't they do it anyway, whatever they do? Then, I use ublock and I hope it helps. If it doesn't, well, tough luck, but what do I do? I do want to read that one paragraph from the medium/NYT article I found on Google, despite how much I hate them. I won't stop using the internet because of... whatever this is. I can only imagine, what it's like for average user, who is, let's be honest, pretty clueless. I guess for them it is indeed the EU who is too blame here. GDPR is more useful, but still I'm not sure if it really helps. Like, I remember someone complaining that before GDPR you could bulk-download gpx files from Strava, and now you can only request .fit files, that are supposed to containt more data, but really aren't that useful for most. Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors (especially Garmin, god I hate them so much). They are successfully making life harder for you, because they don't want it to be easy to get your own data back. And who is to stop them? Maybe it's a matter of time, I don't know, but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to.
- latexr 2y ago
  The cookie law and GDPR are often conflated, but they are different things. It doesn’t help that websites engage in malicious compliance, thus making everything more confusing. I’ll leave you with two links. The first explains which kinds of cookies do not require consent. You’ll see the list is pretty reasonable. The second is to noyb, a non-profit fighting for privacy (the name means “none of your business”), who has been doing good work thanks to the GDPR. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/
- troupo 2y ago
  > Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. Indeed, and that's exactly what the industry wants. Show me where exactly GDPR mandates the cookie dialogues. Or ePrivacy Directive for that matter. > Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors Yes. And yet you somehow twist it to blame GDPR > but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to. Yea. Enforcement has been sadly lacking
ruthmarx 2y ago
What would the 'light' pattern be in this case, where the business wants to comply with regulation and maximize profit?
- latexr 2y ago
  Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine).
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.
    - latexr 2y ago
      What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        > What are you on about? Exactly what you say here: > the two times I replied to you responding to someone else --- > Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. I find that very odd, not to pay attention to who you are replying to, but OK. > quite the persecution complex. Nah. It's a pretty common behavior or 'pattern' that some people who feel strongly about a position will reply to other child comments by a person they are debating with. I find it frustrating because it normally leads to a lot of redundancy, with the same points being repeated in multiple places, just wasting time. I mistakenly thought that's what you were doing. I apologize.

latexr 2y ago

> and thee cookie popups are the best way to do that. No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting (we did it forever before the internet) and you do not need cookie warnings if your cookies aren’t invasive. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... > The activity isn't illegal, and the EU didn't make it illegal. Indeed that is a shame. If only.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> No, the best way to do it is not invade people’s privacy. You can have ads without targeting You are deliberately missing the point and shifting the goalposts. You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? There are so many more important things business should voluntarily abstain from by that reasoning. No, as long as the behavior remains legal, a business has every right to engage in such activity. The only reason the cookie popups are a thing is because the **EU** mandated some sort of notification which basically mapped to these popups. So it's the EU to lame. No question about it. A business engaging in legal activity is not to blame, since it's the regulations around that activity and not the businesses practicing the activity that are the topic of discussion here. Stop shifting the buck. It's so incredibly dishonest.
- latexr 2y ago
  > You're talking about asking a business voluntarily not engage in lucrative legal business activities. Why would they do that? It is baffling that you can make that claim without realising your mistake. Yes indeed, why would businesses do that voluntarily? The answer is they aren’t doing it voluntarily, they are forced by law. In other words, the EU has made the practice illegal. Specifically, it is illegal to engage in that data collection without consent. Let’s take tobacco warning labels as another example. Governments decided that tobacco companies have to print large warnings on cigarette packs. They didn’t make it illegal to sell tobacco, but if you want to do it you have to include those labels. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st... Do you also blame governments for mandating those warning labels and would prefer there to be none? I mean, you do you, but please don’t accuse others of goal shifting and dishonesty simply because you misunderstood an argument. My position has remained consistent, I gave the poison example (which you chose to ignore) in the first post.

eska 2y ago

It is in fact illegal until the user opts into it. The company has to assume no as an answer until then.

ruthmarx 2y ago
Sure, hence the popups mandated by EU regulation.