News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by paulcole on Wednesday March 13, 2019 @04:53PM (#19383638)
> Clicking 'no' should still allow people to view the website, but without placing any tracking cookies.

No! It doesn't. Viewing a website isn't anyone's god-given right. The tracking cookies are part of the business model. If you don't agree with how a business makes money, stop patronizing them.

If this is serious, look for companies to just block all traffic from The Netherlands. Why even bother dealing with the hassle.

Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday March 13, 2019 @09:41PM (#19385814)
Siphoning up people's data isn't anyone's god-given right. If you don't like EU laws, then don't do business there.
Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by jessaustin on Thursday March 14, 2019 @08:09AM (#19388463)
Isn't that what "just block all traffic from The Netherlands" would mean?
Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by white-flame on Thursday March 14, 2019 @12:44AM (#19386584)
Slavery and child labor were also just "part of the business model".

Some business models are predatory societal negatives and should be done away with at a government level of respecting individual rights. Behind-the-scenes tracking and data brokering are in that class.

Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by strken on Thursday March 14, 2019 @01:53AM (#19386803)
Slavery and child labour are coercive. Not letting you use a website is only coercive if that website is Facebook or Google or some other monopoly core to a person's ability to function in modern society. If you can't access Bob's Bargain Basement Underwear then you've got plenty of competitors to go to.
Re:Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop by white-flame on Thursday March 14, 2019 @04:12AM (#19387317)
It has nothing to do with being coercive, or any such specific facet of any implementation of rights violation. It's about being a rights violation, full stop.

Regarding options, in the current model it is generally unknown to the user what is happening with their seemingly private, personal, and "lock icon" encrypted activities on a site. While some here might consider it a "fair exchange" to give up PII in exchange for website services, the vast majority do not understand or even perceive that, and it is not an informed exchange at all. It violates the user, both in the nature of the exchange and in the privacy implications. It is a type of interaction that should rightly be barred in the absence of understanding and explicit, intentional consent.