←back to thread

583 points SweetSoftPillow | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
michaelmauderer ◴[] 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 #
itopaloglu83 ◴[] No.45668333[source]
Tracking by default is not an acceptable solution, so I would say respecting the Do-Not-Track header must be mandatory and enforced by laws and percentage of global revenue fines.
replies(2): >>45668525 #>>45668738 #
layer8 ◴[] No.45668738[source]
That wouldn’t help much in terms of annoyance, because you need the option of per-site or per-service opting-in to tracking cookies (like “remember me” checkboxes and similar functionality), and then you can’t really prevent web pages showing a banner offering that opt-in option. It wouldn’t be exactly the same as today’s cookie banners, but websites would made it similarly annoying.
replies(4): >>45668808 #>>45668888 #>>45669555 #>>45669756 #
ajsnigrutin ◴[] No.45669555[source]
In my opinion, it would be best to regulate the browsers themselves... preinstalled browser on a device sold in EU? Cookies are silently stored to a temporary jar, deleted on tab/window close. One jar per domain. Then add a button by the address bar to enable the "I want this site to remember me", and it'll make the cookies from that domain 'permanent' (with an additonal 'advanced' setting if you want to allow 3rd party cookies too or not).

But hey, when the regulators are lawyers who have no idea what cookies and browser are, we get consent forms on every domain visit.

replies(2): >>45670128 #>>45670322 #
Thiez ◴[] No.45670128[source]
That is a terrible proposal. The GDPR is not about cookies, it's about tracking. Websites can track you through cookies, through browser fingerprinting, through your IP adres, through your login, through your local storage, and various other ways. They could probably find ways to track you by your mouse movements or how you type, if all other methods were somehow made unavailable.

That websites track you and then sell that data has nothing to do with how long your browser stores cookies. Cookies are just one of many, many ways that websites do tracking.

replies(1): >>45671192 #
bschwindHN ◴[] No.45671192[source]
That's true, but at least then we could rid the internet of all those shitty cookie consent banners plastered all over. Those are almost more annoying to me than some company making a fraction of a penny on selling my mouse movement history to some chump.
replies(1): >>45672033 #
pasc1878 ◴[] No.45672033[source]
And that is a different view - I prefer the privacy and no tracking unless I give explicit permissions.
replies(1): >>45675489 #
icedchai ◴[] No.45675489{3}[source]
You should ask if true privacy is really possible. Cookies are just the tip of the iceberg. Between IP addresses, browser fingerprinting, unique URLs, and the existence of third parties that correlate information across web sites (mainly ad networks) I'm confident it isn't.
replies(2): >>45678665 #>>45680549 #
1. pasc1878 ◴[] No.45678665{4}[source]
Well then the tracker is breading the GDPR keeping personal identifiable information

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

Yes US sites will be doing that

replies(1): >>45681341 #
2. icedchai ◴[] No.45681341[source]
Some US sites may bother, many won't. At a small startup, whenever this was discussed, it was decided we had better things to focus on since we had no paying EU customers.