logoalt Hacker News

xp84last Tuesday at 11:22 PM1 replyview on HN

> The obnoxious cookie banners are not required by "idiotic EU cookie laws".

Of course, the alternative is to not use cookies, to not use any web analytics products, or to resolve to argue the semantics of what is necessary before a judge when sued by one of the many lawyers who now advertise (ironically) all over social media with come-ons like "Did you browse FUZZYSWEATERS .COM? Your data may have been improperly used!"

> 1. This was already implemented

Please let me know what browser does what I describe. Close as I can come is configuring a Chromium based browser to just only keep cookies for certain domains, but it's a pain in the butt so I stopped worrying about it a long time ago.

> Oh, so an "easy" solution isn't easy after all. Who would've thought.

But I went on to detail the much "easier" solution where the EU aims its big swinging...list of mandates... at the 2-3 browser vendors rather than involving 10,000,000 small businesses worldwide in the business of trying to guess if they're "GDPR compliant," or could be in breach because they added some snippet of code from a useful web analytics platform that could be said to "track" users.

Do you really think that it is easier and better to regulate millions of people/companies to make them all do a complex thing in good faith AND do it well, than to make those couple of companies sandbox cookie storage in a way that severely kneecaps cross-site tracking?

> 2. Tracking isn't limited to cookies only

Sure, but also I question to what extent anyone is being harmed by "tracking" in the most broad sense of that word. As far as I can tell, the public believes "tracking is a problem" primarily because they resent retargeting ads. That's all. People see a shirt or a chainsaw or an air fryer "following them around" after they browsed for one, and think "that's weird! THEY know!" Despite the fact that most of those things function very simply, do not give a shit who you are, just some ID that your browser saved and is sending back, and which is tied to a list of SKUs you showed interest in.

The more reasonable concern is more around data brokers and the data about a person being sold and aggregated, which mostly gets concerning when it could be used for stalking, targeting political dissidents, etc. The fact that I spent 34 seconds on A product page, then 32 seconds on B, then added B to my cart and then bounced, that is the nature of all of the data being tracked on 90% of websites, they don't traffic in my location data or even want to collect sensitive information. But every website is affected by the GDPR's vague definitions of "tracking." And ironically, I assume partly because all these in-sandbox "CMPs" barely even work, I haven't even observed a decrease in retargeting ads, the #1 thing that people actually observe and are bothered by.


Replies

troupolast Wednesday at 8:06 AM

> Of course, the alternative is to not use cookies, to not use any web analytics products, or to resolve to

Honestly, I could not parse this rant that is a chain of non-sequiturs

> Please let me know what browser does what I describe.

Segmenting cookies has been a thing in all browsers for half a decade at least. Everyone but Chrome block third-party cookies. Safari clears out a bunch of cookies periodically (and PWA developers hate it for that)

> But I went on to detail the much "easier" solution where the EU aims its big swinging...list of mandates... at the 2-3 browser vendors

Ah yes, because tracking is only limited to cookies and to browsers.

> Sure, but also I question to what extent anyone is being harmed by "tracking" in the most broad sense of that word. As far as I can tell, the public believes "tracking is a problem" primarily because they resent retargeting ads. That's all.

Well, people from countries with quite recent cases of pervasive and invasive surveillance have other problems with invasive and pervasive tracking.

> The more reasonable concern is more around data brokers and the data about a person being sold and aggregated, which mostly gets concerning when it could be used for stalking, targeting political dissidents, etc. The fact that I spent 34 seconds on A product page, then 32 seconds on B, then added B to my cart and then bounced, that is the nature of all of the data being tracked on 90% of websites, they don't traffic in my location data or even want to collect sensitive information.

You have to chose one stance, not multiple at the same time:

- is this not a problem because who cares about a single ID?

- is this a problem because data broker amass and trade vast amounts of sensitive personal data?

> But every website is affected by the GDPR's vague definitions of "tracking."

Ah yes. It's GDPR that causes these poor innocent web sites to use data brokers that keep my precise location data for 12 years: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

And GDPR isn't required at all, because all we need to do is make the 2-3 major browser to just not set cookies, because that's all we're concerned about. There are no other ways of tracking people, and that tracking data isn't used by anyone anywhere.

Except, you know, "data brokers and the data about a person being sold and aggregated", but who cares about that.