←back to thread

332 points vegasbrianc | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
uniqueuid ◴[] No.42144954[source]
I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread.

Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner.

There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident that losing time over privacy is so horrible. In fact, when designing a law that enhances consumer rights through informed consent, it is inevitable that this imposes additional time spent on thinking, considering and acting.

It's the whole point, folks! You cannot have an informed case-by-case decision without spending time.

replies(16): >>42145020 #>>42145131 #>>42145155 #>>42145209 #>>42145333 #>>42145656 #>>42145815 #>>42145852 #>>42146272 #>>42146629 #>>42147195 #>>42147452 #>>42147781 #>>42148046 #>>42148053 #>>42150487 #
GJim ◴[] No.42145155[source]
> I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread.

SV and the advertising industry thrives on those misunderstandings.

Put simply, there is no need for "cookie banners" unless those cookies are being used to track or personally identify me (hello advertisers!), in which case, I need to give my opt-in informed consent to allow this; and so I should.

Hardly surprising SV and the advertising industry campaigns against "cookie banners", rather than their own unethical trading in personal data without consent.

replies(1): >>42147864 #
1. ryandrake ◴[] No.42147864[source]
Silicon Valley in general has a huge problem understanding consent. If the world was a night club, "Silicon Valley" would be that creepy guy who goes up to everyone saying "You're dancing with me now, unless you opt out [Yes | Ask again later]."