Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by AlexandrB on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @06:10PM (#34619455)

They could just... not use tracking cookies. Then no banner is required. The real idiocy is every website wanting to hoover up data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by gtirloni on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @08:36PM (#34620881)

The popup is about any cookies, right?

Cookies are a basic building blocks of websites. If you login to a legit website, there's a cookie in your browser for that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by dspillett on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @09:07PM (#34621131)

> The popup is about any cookies, right?

The popup is, yes. But the legislation they are pretending to be compliant with isn't.

For basic session-level cookies that are essential to the operation of some sites, no legislation requires consent. The issues are third party tracking, long term use stalking, etc. But those that want to stalk you want you to believe that the legislation is against even session maintenance & similar cookies as well so you'll be against the legislation and not them. And that is apparently working on you and some others commenting in this thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by gtirloni on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @09:21PM (#34621226)

Got it, those are good points. Thanks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by yreg on Thursday February 02, 2023 @05:15PM (#34633982)

Unfortunately it's not always reasonably possible to convince the client / legal team that a cookie banner is not needed in such case and the decision makers would rather be sure than care about the UX. Or so I heard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by dspillett on Friday February 03, 2023 @07:01AM (#34640043)

This is understandable, though it shows a lack of legal understanding which could be worrying from a legal team, as there was a lot of scare-mongering when cookie-and-other-tracking legislation was a significant talking point.

Also, largely due to the same anti-anti-tracking voices making spurious claims of what would happen, some put the warning up not because they think they need to, but to avoid having to argue that they don't need to if a complaint is made.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by yreg on Friday February 03, 2023 @08:38AM (#34640874)

It might be just them refusing to look into it and covering their asses, because they don't care if there is an unnecessary cookie banner.

But to be fair the stories I have heard were something along the lines of: a freelancer making a website for a local restaurant and being unable to convince the restaurant owner, because the owner's nephew said that the cookie banner must be there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by cute_boi on Thursday February 02, 2023 @12:25AM (#34622458)

github doesn't require such consent?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by ronjouch on Thursday February 02, 2023 @04:04AM (#34624022)

https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by nathancahill on Thursday February 02, 2023 @02:06AM (#34623176)

No, login cookies are specifically exempt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight by renewiltord on Thursday February 02, 2023 @06:57AM (#34625365)

And you can just not use the website. Then no data is hoovered. I actually think this is probably the best system. It's double opt-in. If you both commit to your sides, you both sign the deal and get what you want. If neither of you wants to do it, you can both just not sign the deal.

[ Parent | on HN ]