Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's so depressing. Many of the people who are pointing the finger at the regulators for the annoying cookie banners don't actually see the web site/app *as* a bad actor. The fact that they had been tracking tons of extra data via cookies without their consent or knowledge was totally fine to them as long as it wasn't inconveniencing them in any way. The cookie banner is an inconvenience to their mindless consumption, so NOW it's a problem and they just don't care what the solution actually is as long as the thing goes away.

I've seen this attitude from tech people, too, so it's not just a matter of tech ignorance or illiteracy.



> don't actually see the web site/app as a bad

Some of these bad actors actors with annoying cookie banners:

https://gdpr.eu/

https://european-union.europa.eu/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en


I only got a cookie banner on the first of those links, and as far as cookie banners go it wasn't very annoying; I clicked "no" and it went away immediately.


I only got cookie banners on the first two links and they were extremely unobtrusive. You did not make the point you had hoped to make.


> totally fine

this is not true. It's just that most people are powerless to fight against the dark pattern onslaught.


> The cookie banner is an inconvenience to their mindless consumption,

It’s an inconvenience to people who care about privacy and use browser configurations that don’t store state between visits.

So now in an attempt to protect regular users, the law ended up hurting users that already cared.

Additionally, the shadiest and incompetent sites still just track people with no cookie banner. So the law doesn’t really provide protection against uncooperative parties, whereas privacy technology does.


> It’s an inconvenience to people who care about privacy and use browser configurations that don’t store state between visits. > > So now in an attempt to protect regular users, the law ended up hurting users that already cared.

Fair point about the banners mostly "hurting" users who care about privacy (but, really though- how much does it really "hurt" you? I'm "hurt" more by the fact that I have to fold laundry several days a week).

But, I take major issue with you saying that the LAW ended up hurting users. Companies are under no legal obligation to make those banners as obnoxious as they are or with so many dark patterns (I sometimes don't know if I'm even enabling or disabling tracking with the way they word it). That's squarely on the web site owners pulling that nonsense.

> Additionally, the shadiest and incompetent sites still just track people with no cookie banner. So the law doesn’t really provide protection against uncooperative parties, whereas privacy technology does.

I agree that the only/best way to protect yourself is via technology and not by relying on people obeying the law.

However, if this is also an argument against having the law, it's an incredibly weak one. You can apply that logic to argue that NO laws are effective. People still murder even though it's illegal- must be a bad law, no?


> Companies are under no legal obligation to make those banners as obnoxious as they are

Actually every single lawyer we asked about implementing GDPR advised us to have one of those obnoxious banners. Because the law is so ambiguous and the penalties so high that is better to play it safe. And we have no ads nor tracking at all on our product website.

You can ignore your lawyer's advice if you want, but it's a bit like a lawyer office ignoring my data security and backup advice: assuming a huge amount of risk.


If you are using cookies for user preferences/settings, then they require consent. If you are only using cookies for session information (like a shopping cart), then you don't have to get consent. Your lawyers know this.

Frankly, I doubt the veracity of this anecdote. But even so, I'm willing to bet that the lawyers in this story did not tell you that the banners have to cover half the screen and have ambiguous wording to intentionally confuse visitors to your site. When I say "obnoxious banner" I'm not being redundant: not all banners or popovers are "obnoxious".


Are you a lawyer? Are you willing to assume the liability I may incur if I follow your advice? Or are you at least a business owner/manager who's had to deal with this crap?

Or are you in the peanut gallery willing to believe that there is some conspiracy where all websites have suddenly decided to obliterate their user's UX when GDPR appeared just because they are evil?

I live in the EU and I can tell you: ALL banners/popups are obnoxious. They ALL get in my way when I want to do something entirely different. As a (non ad/user-tracking) business I would never afflict them on my users if I had a choice.

The productivity loss here in EU since the GDPR would be staggering - if there was much productivity to begin with, of course.


The GDRP is about all kinds of tracking, of which things you can block locally at the browser level is only one part. So yes, even those users that already cared enough to block/discard cookies benefit.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: