Most of the time, when I search for something and land on page with GDPR banner without 'reject all' option - I just click on back button and try luck with other page.
People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
71–80 of 265 posts
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#72>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
> No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Personally, I think that despite seemingly good intentions, this common practice is counterintuitively harming user-privacy and security, especially on mobile where the banners take up a large chunk of the screen. Many normal people get something like "banner-blindness": they are so used to seeing banners requesting confirmation when they visit a w…
I don't understand why they didn't use the Do-Not-Track header. It's perfect: a client sending DNT is explicitly denying consent to any form of tracking before the page is even rendered. The presence of such a header should cause web applications to automatically delete any and all tracking javascript from their pages at the very least.
No idea why it turned into this cookie banner nonsense.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#73>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
>No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Given that you can completely block cookies and other tracking in the browser, why on earth did they bother? I despise bureaucrats writing laws when they don't understand technology.
Because cookies are useful functionality that should be used in our best interests, not to pad some corporation's bottom line via surveillance capitalism. We shouldn't have to block cookies or anything, they're the ones who have to stop creating software that is essentially malware.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essential cookies that are necessary for the website to run do not need a permission from the user. For example, if you want to use cookies to save a selection or a language setting, you don't need to ask for permission.
Yep - but to clarify, the cookies must really be NECESSARY - i.e. your site or app would be unusable without the feature they implement. A cookie that saves, for instance, a preference may not be considered essential but a "Functional Cookie" that adds extra features, because your app is usable without it, and then you do need permission for it.
Well, what does unusable mean? If my app offers a feature and the cookie is necessary for it to work, then it's essential. For example, a cart feature in an ecommerce app. Could you shop without a cart? Sure, still I would consider this cookie essential.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Personally, I think that despite seemingly good intentions, this common practice is counterintuitively harming user-privacy and security, especially on mobile where the banners take up a large chunk of the screen. Many normal people get something like "banner-blindness": they are so used to seeing banners requesting confirmation when they visit a w…
I don't understand why they didn't use the Do-Not-Track header. It's perfect: a client sending DNT is explicitly denying consent to any form of tracking before the page is even rendered. The presence of such a header should cause web applications to automatically delete any and all tracking javascript from their pages at the very least. No idea why it turned into this cookie banner nonsense.
Microsoft pulled an Apple and turned DNT into opt-in. Advertisers were very clear that they would only honor DNT if it people were tracked by default.
The EU then passed a bill that said you can't collect data unless it's for one of six reasons, one of which is "user consent". This basically mandated opt-in, so everyone went super-aggressive on consent banners (which, BTW, are probably illegal).
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#76I never interact with cookie banners at all as some sites interpret that as consent (despite what the law says.) If it's in the way I delete it with the web inspector.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#77I usually just close the page if i see such popup
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#78>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
At least in the EU most sites seem to automatically disable nonessential cookies if you don't click Accept. The American equivalents all force you to manually uncheck everything
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#79>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
> No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Personally, I think that despite seemingly good intentions, this common practice is counterintuitively harming user-privacy and security, especially on mobile where the banners take up a large chunk of the screen. Many normal people get something like "banner-blindness": they are so used to seeing banners requesting confirmation when they visit a w…
> Personally, I think that despite seemingly good intentions
Why do you think they have good intentions?
Many of these banners employ some pretty slick dark patterns for you to opt-in to their most critical analytics. One of my favorites is when cookie selection is more than one click from the banner, or it causes a page reload.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#80>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
>No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Given that you can completely block cookies and other tracking in the browser, why on earth did they bother? I despise bureaucrats writing laws when they don't understand technology.
I despise engineers writing code when they don't understand laws.
Yes, we can play the tracker-removal cat-and-mouse game, but that involves a lot of time and effort, projected forever. This battle is going to be won by whoever has the most time and money to waste, and, spoiler alert: it's not the adblock vendors. It's Google.
In the specific case of cookies, you need those to authenticate to web services, so you can't just block all of them. Instead you need to delicately allow or deny every cookie based on if it's purpose is holding a login token or tracking a user. In fact, sometimes it's both.
Strictly speaking, if I log into Facebook, that shouldn't be considered consent to track. But right now, that's how it works. You know all those "login with Facebook" buttons all over the web? Those give Facebook third-party tracking capability. There is no browser extension in the world that will allow you to login with Facebook without also telling Facebook what site you were logging into. You need a law to force Facebook to split-brain themselves and silo off that data from their advertising operations.
Yeah, sure. "Just don't use Login with Facebook". Except every third-party login system has this problem - and there are plenty of smaller companies that absolutely do not want to handle user credentials and require that you use a third-party login service. And given that using smaller providers are the easiest way to get your credentials stolen, it is entirely understandable and advisable that they not roll their own authentication.
Furthermore, most users are not at all aware of all the technical stuff I mentioned above - and they shouldn't have to be in order to have privacy.
Having a well-written law is a lot easier: you just tell Facebook, "no, really, if you use your login service to track people we're going to fine you". Corporations react to (sufficiently large) fines a lot more favorably than technical restrictions or circumvention. "Don't be evil" is a way bigger guarantee than "can't be evil".