Hacker News Reader

Comment by nielsbot | Hacker News Reader

I know this is OT, BUT

This site's cookie warning says: Please indicate your consent to our tracking tools and the sharing of this information by selecting “I Consent” or by continuing to browse this website.

The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady. Can someone explain how this is even supposed to work? Is there a timer that expires? If I scroll at all am I opted in?

Also, is this even legal in jurisdictions that require a cookie opt-out? I thought I read some language about required a positive user interaction to accept tracking.

View on HN

> The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady

1. open browser

2. navigate to website

3. website installs cookies

4. you must have already consented!

> The "continuing to browse this website" seems shady. Can someone explain how this is even supposed to work? Is there a timer that expires? If I scroll at all am I opted in?

I would be surprised if it "works", or if they do anything other than tracking you from the first moment until you opt out.

A fair amount of websites block EU IPs to avoid complying with GDPR.

I don't remember I've ever had that, although I've moved out or Europe a year ago.

It's a small number. But it does happen.

You don't want the interest of 445 million people, most of whom will consent to tracking? OK with me.

Why would they have to comply anyway if they have no presence in the EU?

EU citizen might register in which case they could be forced to comply or suffer fines

Fines enforced by who? They are not EU citizens or corporations.

The EU of course, there are international agreements, frameworks and even extraditions for such scenarios.If the US can extradite Ukrainians for hosting a torrent tracker, surely the US would extradite people refusing to follow EU law and violate user privacy and consent (joking of course, that would never happen).

So you're saying people can be punished simply for ONLY following their own country's rules for a website hosted solely within that country? Can you cite any precedent for this especially in the US?

No website is "hosted solely in a country" by default. When your website is available to the world, apparently according to the US, you're liable under any jurisdiction out there:

https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/20/12243592/kickass-torrents...

That's why there are so many shitty american middle-of-nowhere Daily Star Gazettes that block EU visitors with a laughable "our EU visitors are important for us". It seems that they agree with GDPR that it covers them if they serve anything to EU citizens.

Any self-respecting nation would ignore treaties requiring them to enforce the laws of foreign nations on citizens who never leave their soil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com