Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by slotrans 1055 days ago
Cookie banners are absolutely the fault of the EU.

Users have always been in control of whether they accept cookies. There have been settings in your browser since (at least) Netscape 3.0. It's only because of dumb EU laws that cookie control has been pushed up into "user space" with these idiotic banners that no one reads.
2 comments
dns_snek 1054 days ago
It seems like you don't practice what you preach, seeing how Hacker News relies on cookies for authentication.

Besides, GDPR isn't about cookies, it's about what companies are allowed to do with your personal information. Functional cookies don't require consent, abuse of your personal data does.

link
foverzar 1052 days ago
> Functional cookies don't require consent

You'd want that to be the case, but in practice they do. Just look up how vague the definition of functional cookies is.

No one wants to risk insane fines.

link
turquoisevar 1055 days ago
Really?

Did Netscape 3.0 have per-site options to enable cookies and specifically allow/block third party cookies?

If so, that’s impressive.

link
jamedjo 1054 days ago
Our machines always had Cookie Pal [0] installed on them, and it allowed per domain settings for rejecting cookies and control over third party cookies [1].

> Cookie Pal includes the following features:

> Automatically and transparently accepts or rejects cookies from all or specified servers without user interaction.

> Cookies received from unspecified servers can be automatically accepted or rejected without user interaction, or the user can be asked for confirmation.

> "On the fly" adding of servers to the accept from and reject from lists, allows you to manually accept or reject a cookie the first time it is received and then have it automatically accepted or rejected every time it is received thereafter.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/19971012223847/http://www.kburra...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20010331050614/http://www.kburra...

link
lkbm 1055 days ago
IIRC, no, it wasn't per-site, but disallowing third-party cookies overall was a setting in 3.x.

The more relevant aspect, I think, is that there's an essential/non-essential distinction in the law, which differs from 1st-party/3rd-party.

link