181–190 of 395 posts
This destroyed the world wide web, which was the major driver of the internet as a consumer application. I'm referring to the experience of intelligent & creative publishers sharing content openly on the web. This did far more to destroy the world wide web than ads or tracking
A lot of those hours might be saved if they mandate a “reject all cookies” button on the cookie banner.
They do already, and big companies have already been fined for not offering them, which led to some smaller parties adding them. See here [0] for a list, amongst which was Microsoft getting a $65 million fine for not having an easy opt-out on Bing, or $162 million to Google for the same thing. Noncompliance should be reported. [0] https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-consent-fines/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does "for that analysis" To understand how customer's shop on my website. Heatmaps, view port, device type, screen resolution, frequency of browsing, where their mouse hovers the most, page dwell time, etc. These are impossible tasks for most website operators to do themselves. > For this you do need consent, if you transfer PII. If you don't want a banner you can replace it with a simple checkbox during the c…
You don't need banners just because something is third-party. If there is no PII and/or legitimate consent, you don't need a banner. There are GDPR compliant analytics platforms, fraud prevention, third-party payment gateways, for example. They don't need banners. As for the rest, it's quite inflammatory and I don't know how it relates to my comment, so I'll refrain from answering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might try to argue many types of cookies are non-essential - but that would be because you lack experience in this domain. Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. The EU law compels a popup for these types of services/scripts and 99% of people just click through them because t…
> Website operators have a right to study how people use their website just the same as a brick-and-mortar operator has the right to study how customers navigate their store isles. I think reasonable people can disagree about this, and if enough reasonable people think that a web site operator should not have that "right" then they should be able to pass legislation to curtail it. As a user, I say I should have the r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do already, and big companies have already been fined for not offering them, which led to some smaller parties adding them. See here [0] for a list, amongst which was Microsoft getting a $65 million fine for not having an easy opt-out on Bing, or $162 million to Google for the same thing. Noncompliance should be reported. [0] https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-consent-fines/
Everyone should just geo block EU visitors instead.
1. There are ways to bypass geo-block.
2. People would build alternatives specifically for EU (with few exceptions).
3. They could even offer those alternatives to US, but with better privacy out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not a tracking banner but a cookie banner and some applications have a legitimate need for cookies. They abuse what is legitimate, but you can’t ask regulators to check every site without a national (European?) white liste firewall (shouldn’t give them ideas…). Also, most tracking used to use cookies but if that becomes illegal there’s others ways.
Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).
The whole thing is a colossal waste too, it was a law written by people who don't understand tech for special interest groups who don't want to actually make things better. If you don't want a website doing something on your computer, you start with the browser, not the website.
That's why they created DoNotTrack initially. Then browsers turned that on by default, ad revenue lowered, and sites/adcompanies decided to ignore it because it was turned on by default.
2. It was intended to be a way to communicate an actual intent from the user. Once it was set by default, it ceased to be an indicator of user intent.
People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law. The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software…
If I do not want a website to set any cookies, the correct course of action is to tell my user-agent to not keep any cookies from it.
Why should websites even be trusted with implementing these banners in the first place? Browser vendors should be responsible for implementing these controls per-origin. Give a little banner pop-up built into Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and the rest. Have it display every time a new site sets a cookie for the first time. Or have it reject every cookie by default, unless I whitelist a site. This would result in a consist…
It should be, but then legislators don't get to brag about having Done Something and enforcers don't get to brag about punishing Bad People.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need banners just because something is third-party. If there is no PII and/or legitimate consent, you don't need a banner. There are GDPR compliant analytics platforms, fraud prevention, third-party payment gateways, for example. They don't need banners. As for the rest, it's quite inflammatory and I don't know how it relates to my comment, so I'll refrain from answering.
You don’t need banners period. The EU doesn’t get to tell people how to operate their web properties. If EU citizens don’t like it, they can stop visiting those properties. Even simpler.
Well, except for all the people in the eu. I'm pretty sure the eu does get to tell those people to do or not do things, online or not.