Hacker News Reader

Comment by mngnt | Hacker News Reader

I'm really sad that even professionals hate the cookie/gdpr/data collection banners for the wrong reason. And most people hate the wrong entity for being responsible for their existence.

If companies weren't actively spying on their users, if the didn't collect every last bit of data they can, there would be no need to put up a banner. If the website needs cookies for core functionality (essential cookies) only, there' no need to inform, ask or badger the user for anything. The websites/data collectors are the bad guy here (from where I'm standing) and now that they have to ask us if they can please spy on us, the EU is evil because they force them to ask?

The main presented point of this bill is "We will eliminate the obligation for the spies to ask you if they may spy on you" and even the author of this piece is celebrating that.

View on HN

> and even the author of this piece is celebrating that.

I don't think so. Read the last part of that sentence which I've emphasised in italics.

"So if you work in any sort of tech or digital related role, and the work you put into the world can be viewed, or accessed, by anyone of any age in the UK, and you are (rightfully) celebrating the loss of the cookie popups, I need you to do me a favour and drop the balloons and party streamers and sit down."

> The websites/data collectors are the bad guy here (from where I'm standing) and now that they have to ask us if they can please spy on us, the EU is evil because they force them to ask?

If the end-result of the law + standard human behavior is that you made web browsing a crappier experience then you made a crappy law.

> If the end-result of the law + standard human behavior is that you made web browsing a crappier experience then you made a crappy law.

That's not a very good way to figure out if a law is "crappy". Building codes make for a crappier construction experience (can't just do whatever TF you want) but that doesn't mean they're bad.

Laws requiring designated handicapped parking spaces make parking a slightly crappier experience for non-handicapped people. That doesn't mean they're crappy laws.

It's a bad law if it ends up punishing the people it was intended to help. If the building code had a clause about building decks and max occupancy where the easiest way for a contractor to comply was to post a gigantic sign permanently attached to the deck stating the weight limit, the end-user would view that as terrible as well.

You really think that basic web analytics is "spying on you"? So a company that records how many people purchase a given product is "spying" on them? Business owners are not allowed to do basic accounting to gauge product performance? Because that's all 99% of people use these analytics for.

No one cares about you enough to "spy" on you.

What is "basic accounting to gauge product performance"?

> "No one cares about you enough to "spy" on you."

Would you mind telling them that? Maybe they'll stop sending me personalised spam offering me discounts since I haven't shopped there in a while, or paying to send me phyisical advertisements through the post. From your tone, that must be giving me an inflated sense of my own importance.

> "You really think that basic web analytics is "spying on you""

No, I think web analytics is spying on me. A HTTP log is one thing, a JavaScript library which probes my browser, tracks available APIs and versions and mouse movements and sets EverCookies and behaves insidiously, is spying. If I visit example.com and example.com know I went there, that's understandable. If there's a deliberately invisible Facebook pixel telling Facebook I went to example.com, which is only vaguely disclosed in some "and our trusted 3rd parties" legalese, that's not fine.

If this uses a third-party company whose business model is stalking everyone for targeted ads then it's absolutely spying.

If the government didn’t pass meaningless ineffective laws this wouldn’t be a problem

Reply on news.ycombinator.com