←back to thread

582 points SweetSoftPillow | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tbrownaw ◴[] No.45668288[source]
> Your browser becomes your personal privacy enforcer, and the law would require it to act on your behalf. Based on your one-time choice, it would be responsible for allowing or declining cookies from every site you visit. If a website tries to use a cookie with an unclear or undeclared purpose?

Browsers are something the end-user installs. Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense.

This sounds like the idea is for the site to add extra metadata that's not there now, about what each cookie does. Which would still involve mandating site owners to do things.

.

Also, both private mode and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... are a thing already, without government meddling.

replies(2): >>45668335 #>>45668366 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.45668366[source]
> Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense.

On what basis? What difference is there between regulating website code and browser code? How a website functions and how a browser functions?

replies(1): >>45670086 #
msla ◴[] No.45670086[source]
Because a browser is not always a commercial product, whereas a website often is.

I should not need to follow a ridiculous law to give away some software.

replies(1): >>45670795 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.45670795[source]
That distinction doesn't make sense. You could just as easily say websites are not always commercials products, whereas browsers often are made by for-profit corporations.

You seem to be anti-regulation period.

replies(2): >>45671102 #>>45671577 #
msla ◴[] No.45671577[source]
A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce.

A browser doesn't have that simple test. It can be used to do anything.

Therefore, the commercial website made by someone who chose to make it commercial needs to be regulated, as opposed to trying to regulate every browser.

(As an aside, you likely don't know how many browsers exist.)

replies(1): >>45672206 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.45672206[source]
> A website is non-commercial when it isn't doing commerce.

So Chrome is non-commercial? Edge is non-commercial?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Those browsers exist specifically for the commercial advantage they bring the corporations that create them.

And please don't make asides that make assumptions about my knowledge. You might want to take a look at the HN guidelines.

replies(2): >>45675416 #>>45676896 #
1. msla ◴[] No.45676896{5}[source]
So Lagrange has to bend to the bizarre laws? w3m? lynx?

You prove you have no idea how many browsers exist.

replies(1): >>45677551 #
2. crazygringo ◴[] No.45677551[source]
Your idea of proof is a strange one...