←back to thread

Internet's biggest annoyance: Cookie laws should target browsers, not websites

(nednex.com)
582 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | 22 Oct 25 12:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
michaelmauderer ◴[22 Oct 25 12:36 UTC] No.45668112[source]▶
The problem here is not the law, but malicious compliance by websites that don't want to give up tracking.

"Spend Five Minutes in a Menu of Legalese" is not the intended alternative to "Accept All". "Decline All" is! And this is starting to be enforced through the courts, so you're increasingly seeing the "Decline All" option right away. As it should be. https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stan...

Of course, also respecting a Do-Not-Track header and avoiding the cookie banner entirely while not tracking the user, would be even better.

replies(27): >>45668188 #>>45668227 #>>45668253 #>>45668318 #>>45668333 #>>45668375 #>>45668478 #>>45668528 #>>45668587 #>>45668695 #>>45668802 #>>45668844 #>>45669149 #>>45669369 #>>45669513 #>>45669674 #>>45670524 #>>45670593 #>>45670822 #>>45670839 #>>45671739 #>>45671750 #>>45673134 #>>45673283 #>>45674480 #>>45675431 #>>45678865 #
crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 25 12:52 UTC] No.45668318[source]▶
No, the problem is 100% the law, because it was written in a way that allows this type of malicious compliance.

Laws need to be written well to achieve good outcomes. If the law allows for malicious compliance, it is a badly written law.

The sites are just trying to maximize profit, as anyone could predict. So write better laws.

replies(20): >>45668365 #>>45668389 #>>45668443 #>>45668540 #>>45668630 #>>45668809 #>>45668823 #>>45668886 #>>45669084 #>>45669675 #>>45670704 #>>45671579 #>>45672352 #>>45672518 #>>45672991 #>>45673713 #>>45674575 #>>45675918 #>>45676040 #>>45676756 #
itopaloglu83 ◴[22 Oct 25 12:57 UTC] No.45668365[source]▶
Although I agree the law isn’t as good as it could be. It’s also impossible to create perfect law when websites are looking to avoid the spirit of the law to begin with.

Otherwise how can we explain “please see our privacy policy and send us a sneaker email to opt out” kind of tracking options.

replies(2): >>45668438 #>>45668471 #
lesuorac ◴[22 Oct 25 13:01 UTC] No.45668438{3}[source]▶
Yeah law is kinda like the rules in sports leagues. You have to keep updating it as the meta shits.

It's impossible to write things correctly the first or final time and especially with the interpretation of words changing over time it doesn't matter if you could.

replies(2): >>45668600 #>>45668966 #
1. jeroenhd ◴[22 Oct 25 13:37 UTC] No.45668966{4}[source]▶
This is part of why a lot of EU directives are almost 50% "why this law is necessary and what we're trying to achieve", 30% "what needs to be implemented", and then 20% "who's going to look after all of this and how".

That way, a misplaced comma or a wonky sentence doesn't allow for easy loopholes that need tighter laws to fix issues.

Now law text will work forever, but this format makes for a very solid foundation.