←back to thread

582 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
moooo99 ◴[] No.45668075[source]
I disagree that this should be in the scope of a browser.

Cookie banner are called cookie banners because they‘re most frequently associated with the opt in for tracking cookies, but this kind of opt in is required for any kind of third party involvement that goes beyond technical necessity.

Your browser has no way to tell what third party present on the site is a technical necessity and which one isn‘t. So you‘d have to tell it - making it part of the site providers problem as well. But this time its worse, because responsibilities are mixed between the site operator and the third party.

replies(3): >>45668142 #>>45668223 #>>45670402 #
Rygian ◴[] No.45670402[source]
You are exactly correct.

A web browser is technically incapable, by design, of knowing whether any piece of a website (1) is there for the purpose of having the website actually work, or for the purpose of tagging and tracking the end user. Only the website owner chooses those purposes, and only the website owner is in a position to determine (or maliciously hide) which technologies are being used for which tracking or technical purposes.

(1) Cookie laws apply to: Cookies, gif pixels, JS fingerprints, and any other tehcnical means that can be technically exploited to track an individual

replies(1): >>45678117 #
1. janalsncm ◴[] No.45678117[source]
No one is expecting browsers to identify the purposes of cookies. Websites would still need to register cookies as either technically necessary or not. That part stays the same.

As far as malicious/non-compliant websites go, cookie banners don’t make that issue better or worse. They can lie just as easily with a banner. In fact this implementation makes it easier as no one needs to build those ugly banners anymore. (Devastating for the pop up industry though.)