Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law

The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup, and think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.

They would be a LOT less frustrating if:

a) they were standardized — they currently add a hefty cognitive load while parsing them, deciding which action to take, etc.

b) they worked properly — I would say, more often than not, they 'forget' the previous setting. I should never see a cookie popup on the same site twice unless I clear my browser settings.

It is amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which changes especially the cookies part.

> (66) Third parties may wish to store information on the equipment of a user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of purposes, ranging from the legitimate (such as certain types of cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private sphere (such as spyware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive information when engaging in any activity which could result in such storage or gaining of access. The methods of providing information and offering the right to refuse should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The enforcement of these requirements should be made more effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national authorities.

If you read the exceptions part, you know that you don't need a banner on strictly necessary case.

It seems like a point dear to the author's heart, given the way he highlights this and puts it in bold at the top of the article.

But while it sounds good on the surface, it doesn't take much digging to show it's silly. If you store any kind of data about a visitor to make their life more convenient, is that tracking? Shopping carts? Notification preferences? etc.

It's actually a bit ironic to ask visitors if it's ok to track them. If they say no, you have to track them to at least remember that choice.