they could have made the law: >if you collect users data >you must ask first >add a yes or no button on a banner so they can pick but instead the eu citizens were let down by the legislators
that IS the law
Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
351–360 of 395 posts
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#352I know that I'm in the minority, especially here, but I generally welcome paying with my data. it seems to me that companies need to generate revenue and they do this by extracting something of value from the user and that this thing by definition almost would be something the user isn't happy to just hand over: money, watching ads, electricity for mining crypto, personal data etc. It's some form of payment. for me p…
Then click the consent button. You have to consent to a payment being extracted from you.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even this can be done without a banner, as long as these analytics do not contain any way to link them to individuals/specific users It's admittedly sound advice to create a banner for such a usecase however, as sanitizing all user data from these events is hard to guarantee, and you'd have to do just that to keep it legal
I think it's impossible to be 100% legal. Many times, the user IP, which is considered PII, is stored in various servers/routers log that you have no access to...
Lots of misinformation on the internet wrt this, and I am not a lawyer either.
It's especially tragic because Google serves you countless factually incorrect articles if you search for gdpr, which doesn't help with this endless amount of confusion.
You might be interested to know that an IP address isn't actually PII, because that's a concept of California privacy regulation and they don't care about them
https://techgdpr.com/blog/difference-between-pii-and-persona...
It's a different story for gdprs personal data however. Because there are individuals with static IPs - which makes it possible to link these IP addresses to individuals. If you could only omit these, you could technically use ipadresses however you want too. But I admit that that's kinda unrealistic ( • ‿ • )
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't technically even need a banner per se, just respect the user's "do not track" browser setting, or put it in a settings screen, or don't use any 3rd party trackers. But a lot of businesses assume they need to ask permission for placing any cookies, which is simply not correct. Local analytics tracking is fine, it's only when the user can be tracked across multiple separate websites that they need explicit p…
This seems like the best way to go. Companies should have to respect "do not track" and browsers should have to enforce it to the extent that it is technically possible. And "do not track" should be per-domain at least.
[deleted]
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#355I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread. Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner. There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident…
I am informed and chose "No" each time. Why do EU lawmakers not allow me to automatically say no? All they have to do is add a line to the law enforcing companies to respect the DNT or GPC header. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
[deleted]
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's not the regulation but the misguided implementation that's to blame. Sites and cookie banner plugins could just accept DNT signals from browsers and no productivity would be lost.
DNT does not provide informed consent. It may, if set to not track, imply denial, but the reverse is not true. If DNT is accepting or unset, the site needs to fall back to the banner to get consent. And at that point you may as well prompt everyone with the banner instead of complicating the codebase with extra logic for a DNT edge case.
[deleted]
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a new signal, GPC, that does the same thing and has been blessed by the advertising industry. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Se...
> Non-standard: This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future. I tried looking at the various browser standards positions, and as far as I can see, nobody has even asked Blink or WebKit if they are interested in s…
There's movement from the Internet Advertising Bureau, they explicitly say that this signal must be adhered to if the header is present, and this signal must be forwarded to Demand Side Platforms.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I find funny about the whole thing is that the grand majority of companies with cookie banners are not implementing them correctly, and therefore are still in breach of the law. I see constantly banners on sites that set tracking cookies by default, and delete them if you reject them in the banner (or even worse, not delete them at all!) – this is not compliant as the cookies were set before consent was given Al…
Look at how Google does it for Blogger. There is an OK button and a "Learn more" one. There is no reject. Are you saying they are breaking the law? EU would love nothing more than to levy more fines.
They are breaking the law. But enforcement lies with national agencies (unlike antitrust where the EU commission itself enforces). Most national agencies don’t bother, only the French CNIL had levied penalties - pretty much on every one of the big ad tech companies in the Faamgs, Bytedance and Twitter…
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there would be any concerns with "complicating the codebase" (really?) if there was a Yes-Track header that gave consent but no negative signal.
There is a "Yes-Track" header – DNT: 0 Granted, you can't legally use it like that where EU laws apply, per the GDPR. Hence the complaints about the GDPR you see in other comments.
It's not really a Yes Track if it's simply absent. The user hasn't requested to be tracked. I'm not even sure with it set to 0 that you can assume that intent. I guess it would depend on the browsers behavior, but as you say the law is not compatible with that use.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Am I going insane or is the world going insane? You haven't been reading the news lately, have you?
> You haven't been reading the news lately, have you? If you're referring to the US elections, then you might be interested in the fact that not everyone on HN is from US, and not everyone cares.
There is plenty going on in global news apart from US elections to be concerned about. Even apart from the wars, I think we've been acting insane for a few decades at least w.r.t. emissions and pollution. One person has intelligence, many, not so much.