251–260 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not possible to do a lot of normal web stuff without session cookies.
Define "a lot of normal web stuff". How did we ever do normal web stuff before session cookies?
I am not a fan of the cookie banners at all. If anything I feel like browsers should implement it as it already does with other security settings (access to location, camera, etc…) and then people can decide to allow all websites. Blacklist, whitelist whatever. Why are we making every site implement a completely unique interface with different verbiage?
All those settings in browsers that let you control access to your camera, location, etc aren't part of legal compliance, they are just there because Google, Mozilla, sometimes Apple and Microsoft all agreed this is a good best behavior to avoid getting regulated on again.
If the EU started mandating an opt-in system for camera access you can bet most websites would start dumping pop up banners about it regardless of if all the browsers supported the regulation already just to avoid culpability.
Incidentally, with all of the Organic / GMO-Free / et all certifiers out there, would a privacy badge be the way to go, or is that backwards thinking in the way of early internet site badges?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which doesn’t mean they have to provide access for free, they are most likely allowed to ask a fee for that. From the same website you link [1]: “Does anyone refuse tracking cookies? Then you still need to give this person access to your website or app, for example after payment.” (google translated) [1]: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/onderwerpen/interne...
And how does one track if payment has been made without using a cookie?
Edit: guess somebody never integrated a payment provider :-)
This shows utter incompetence and detachment from reality by European legislators. Maybe it seemed like good idea in theory but the only practical significant impact is that browsing the web has become more annoying. Surely there are solutions that don't require a popup on every webpage you visit? For example enforcing no tracking by default for advertising purposes?
> This shows utter incompetence and detachment from reality by European legislators. > Surely there are solutions that don't require a popup on every webpage you visit? For example enforcing no tracking by default for advertising purposes? Wait, what? There are such solutions. GDPR, and the "cookie law" before it, don't "require" any popups. They allow cookies, 1x1 pixel images, browser fingerprinting, Flash supercoo…
It clearly isn't. Vast majority of people (me too) are trained to automatically accept whatever cookie BS the website asks for, just to get rid of the popup as quickly as possible and get to content. And no, these "spyware" sites such as reddit.com or bloomberg.com won't switch to non-tracking ads to get rid of the popup.
This shows utter incompetence and detachment from reality by European legislators. Maybe it seemed like good idea in theory but the only practical significant impact is that browsing the web has become more annoying. Surely there are solutions that don't require a popup on every webpage you visit? For example enforcing no tracking by default for advertising purposes?
> This shows utter incompetence and detachment from reality by European legislators. > Surely there are solutions that don't require a popup on every webpage you visit? For example enforcing no tracking by default for advertising purposes? Wait, what? There are such solutions. GDPR, and the "cookie law" before it, don't "require" any popups. They allow cookies, 1x1 pixel images, browser fingerprinting, Flash supercoo…
Most people hate the UX change but don’t care about the privacy so probably a net loss for the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, this helps clear up some of my understanding. I still think its ridiculous that websites can't refuse to serve who they want.
Why? It's relatively common for governments to prohibit businesses and services from discriminating against certain types of users, why do you think it's ridiculous in this specific case?
This is like a government saying to a restaurant "You can't discriminate against people who don't want to pay you money for the food. You can ask them if they are willing to give you money for the sandwich, but if they say no, you still have to give them the sandwich"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There was a world wide web before cookies. I like to think of that time as a great time too, but oh man so much we couldn't do.... I get what you're saying generally, but man I'd hate "before cookies" to be the standard.
The big use of cookies for re-authentication and carrying around a session id enabled clean URLs lacking your session id as a query param, but it wouldn't be that big of a deal to lose it. You'd need to be careful with copy-pasting URLs -- but given browsers standardized on cookies they could have standardized on a sessionId param name to filter out of copy-pastes or not even display it at all similar to Chrome's pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance.
Yes absolutely! Websites need to find revenue models that don’t depend on violating the privacy of their users. That stance makes a lot of sense to me.
Shouldn't people be able to choose what currency they want to pay for something in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, there are features that one literally can't provide without state (cookies). I think the real problem here is that the technical feature of cookies providing browser state is a poor proxy for what EU/DPA _really_ wants to regulate, which is privacy-related tracking. There are tons of sites I've written which use cookies, but have no ads and perform no user-tracking whatsoever, not even Google Analytics. It is tr…
Close to 100% of the cookies I see in the wild are not to provide state. There’s only a handful that need them for logging in. Most sites I visit I don’t want to interact with, I just want to read.