←back to thread

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

(nednex.com)
583 points SweetSoftPillow | 2 comments | 22 Oct 25 12:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.424s | source
Show context
JohnFen ◴[22 Oct 25 13:33 UTC] No.45668907[source]▶
As others have said, we already tried this with DNT. Unless websites are legally compelled to honor the signal, the signal is worthless.

But here's an interesting wrinkle that may illustrate further complexity:

> Essential Only: "Only allow data necessary for websites to function (e.g., keeping me logged in, remembering my shopping cart)."

I would never have called either of those examples "necessary for websites to function". They are both just convenience things, not essential things. So there may be a lot of discussion needed about category definitions here.

replies(1): >>45669151 #
padjo ◴[22 Oct 25 13:50 UTC] No.45669151[source]▶
If your website is a shop then being able to put things in a cart is pretty necessary no?
replies(1): >>45669365 #
croes ◴[22 Oct 25 14:05 UTC] No.45669365[source]▶
You don’t need cookies for that.
replies(1): >>45670794 #
padjo ◴[22 Oct 25 15:40 UTC] No.45670794[source]▶
The point is that you need to track the person. The technology used is irrelevant.
replies(2): >>45671028 #>>45672830 #
1. croes ◴[22 Oct 25 17:59 UTC] No.45672830[source]▶
For a shopping cart you need link the visitor to their cart in your database. The cart doesn’t need a cookie and these identification is not what is meant by tracking
replies(1): >>45674900 #
2. Dylan16807 ◴[22 Oct 25 20:43 UTC] No.45674900[source]▶
If there is an identification cookie that is used to find the cart in the database, that is the cart needing a cookie.