I wonder if anyone surveyed Europeans to see if they want the things? I get them in the UK and would be happier without them myself.
Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
381–390 of 395 posts
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is more than about using cookies, despite the regulations being informally called cookie laws, any tracking and storage of PII is covered. > Would there exist any other method of implementing it that would be substantially different? A checkbox or button, anywhere on the page, that you can click to opt-in or ignore to not op-in. Once clicked the site/app has consent to track that consent, so the box can stay ticke…
>A checkbox or button, anywhere on the page, that you can click to opt-in or ignore to not op-in. How about no click to opt out, and a click to opt in?
That is essentially what I said, the default state being opted-out rather than there being an in/out/unknown tri-state, so my "ignore" and your "no click" are the same [in]action.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care The laws do not force that. Informed consent before tracking could be implemented other ways, perhaps even more easily. The companies choose to force you to make the decision, rather than making it something you could choose to click or choose to ignore, because forcing that increases the chance that people who do care will accidentally opt-in and people wh…
Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. So what's the source of the friction if not law itself or its direct consequences? I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has "Please do track me and do whatever you wish with the data you manage to gather."? I think it would be quite popular. So it's p…
> Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me.
If you actively _want_ companies to track you, then you take an unusual position.
> So what's the source of the friction
The right to privacy if you want it. Someone wanting to let people to follow you around should not override the preference of those who would prefer not. The "why should I care that other people care" argument is very similar to those who argue against smoking restrictions (or seatbelt requirements, and so on) because "it should be our choice" without thinking about the potential consequences to others.
> if not law itself or its direct consequences?
The source of friction is how the complaints have chosen to interpret the law. They have chosen to do this in a way that causes maximum inconvenience to anyone who want is protections (many are actually in direct contravention of the rules, despite their claims otherwise, but let's for a moment ignore that companies are actively breaking the law). That it also inconveniences people who want to be tracked is a desired sideeffect as it means those people are weaponised in ad-tech's favour in discussions about such matters.
> I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction.
As well as the binary "your choice" vs "my choice" that completely ignores those who have not yet stated there preference, have not yet decided, or do not yet even know there is a choice, or are just passing by. This is why active consent should be the default requirement.
> There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has…
Your premise is incorrect: Some browsers do. It doesn't work because companies ignore it. It is not in the laws that they shouldn't ignore it because ad-tech and their lobbyists successfully campaigned against that being in the legislation. Again: ad-tech is the reason for your inconvenience, not other people's preference not to be tracked.
Part of the issue is that there is a conflict of interests in done quarters, with makers of browsers also being part of the ad-tech stalking business, another place the effects of this are seen is in changes that prevent us choosing to actively block being tracked because we can't express it choice more passively because DNT is ignored.
> I think it would be quite popular.
We very much agree there.
> So it's probably prevented by the law itself
It is not. Show me anywhere in the current legislation where UAs implementing a DNT flag (which, I say again, some do) or ad-hoc tech respecting such a flag is prevented (either directly, or by accidental interaction between rules).
How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag? (Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at thier convenience).
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have marijuana on you in a country where marijuana is illegal, then finding marijuana on you is illegal. If you don't have marijuana on you, you're not doing anything illegal This is a good analogy. By making the marijuana illegal, you also implicitly widen search powers. You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal. (Or answer a neighbor’s complaint that they suspect they’re growing…
> By making the marijuana illegal, you also implicitly widen search powers. Nope, you don't. Those are two different things. There are plenty of things that are made illegal without giving the government the power to search for them. > You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal. You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either.
I agree with the rest of your comment but
> You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either.
isn't true. Sweden is super strict on usage and if even a "normal" person and/or neighbour would smell weed from you or your place they'd definitely call the cops on you. If a cop smelled weed on you in public you'd get arrested immediately no doubt.
Yet, most people consider Sweden a democracy :)
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a prime example of the EU being utterly useless That's a bold statement to claim that the largest trade block in the world is utterly useless, but I'll bite it. What was the underlying issue they didn't understand?
That companies will go with malicious compliance 9999 times out of 10,000. So ensuring compliance would require immense enforcement efforts from the get-go that still haven't really surfaced.
Where are you getting this information from?
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. So what's the source of the friction if not law itself or its direct consequences? I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has "Please do track me and do whatever you wish with the data you manage to gather."? I think it would be quite popular. So it's p…
> Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. If you actively _want_ companies to track you, then you take an unusual position. > So what's the source of the friction The right to privacy if you want it. Someone wanting to let people to follow you around should not override the preference of those who would prefer not. The "why should I care that other people care" argument is very similar to those who…
> Some browsers do.
Which browsers?
> How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag?
That's exactly what I was asking for. It should exist. My theory why it doesn't is that it wouldn't constitute informed case by case consent. So it's illegal.
> Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at their convenience
I don't care about that because I want to be tracked, just silently.
If I were to design law I wouldn't ban tracking. I would make sites that do track make the information they have on "me" available to me for viewing and possibly editing at my request.
It wouldn't be even "cookie law" because whatever information you tie and store to whatever identity should be available to this identity.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By making the marijuana illegal, you also implicitly widen search powers. Nope, you don't. Those are two different things. There are plenty of things that are made illegal without giving the government the power to search for them. > You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal. You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either.
I agree with the rest of your comment but > You can't arrest someone by smelling like weed in any democracy where it's illegal either. isn't true. Sweden is super strict on usage and if even a "normal" person and/or neighbour would smell weed from you or your place they'd definitely call the cops on you. If a cop smelled weed on you in public you'd get arrested immediately no doubt. Yet, most people consider Sweden a…
I'm sorry, but I was partially pulling a No True Scotsman on that part.
If some random policeman can look at you, decide to arrest you with no real evidence, and it's all legal, that a huge Human Rights violation right there.
How does a judge deal with this? Do they rush to smell the culprit too?
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#388we have fought 20 years to get rid of popups, then EU comes in and shits all over the internet.
Nope. Companies, especially ad-tech and other stalkers and the sites/apps who use their services, are doing the shitting. Nothing in the relevant regulations, from the EU, California, or anywhere else, in any way mandates the inconvenience that these companies are creating for you.
well, technically you are correct, since the consent is required only for non-essential cookies. which means third party / tracking cookies.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. If you actively _want_ companies to track you, then you take an unusual position. > So what's the source of the friction The right to privacy if you want it. Someone wanting to let people to follow you around should not override the preference of those who would prefer not. The "why should I care that other people care" argument is very similar to those who…
> Some browsers do. Which browsers? > How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag? That's exactly what I was asking for. It should exist. My theory why it doesn't is that it wouldn't constitute informed case by case consent. So it's illegal. > Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at their convenience I don't care…
> Which browsers?
Quite a few: https://caniuse.com/do-not-track
Unfortunately the spec is official deprecated, rather than just ignored by sites, because without any regulatory weight it, well, would forever just be ignored by those who want to ignore it.
> I would make sites that do track make the information they have on "me" available to me for viewing and possibly editing at my request.
So, GDPR? That is not a cookie law but governs the tracking of PII, including the right to be given a report of what is stored about you and the right to be forgotten¹. Though it isn't finer grained than that: you can have yourself removed entirely and request corrections, but it does not prescribe any option for more selective deleting.
----
[1] except where that would impinge on other regulation, for instance in industries my day job services companies have to keep certain details of people for certain lengths of time (indefinitely for those associated with selling pensions, for instance) for dealing with complaints and other regulator matters in the long term.
Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some browsers do. Which browsers? > How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag? That's exactly what I was asking for. It should exist. My theory why it doesn't is that it wouldn't constitute informed case by case consent. So it's illegal. > Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at their convenience I don't care…
> Which browsers? Quite a few: https://caniuse.com/do-not-track Unfortunately the spec is official deprecated, rather than just ignored by sites, because without any regulatory weight it, well, would forever just be ignored by those who want to ignore it. > I would make sites that do track make the information they have on "me" available to me for viewing and possibly editing at my request. So, GDPR? That is not a co…
> https://caniuse.com/do-not-track
Oh. I think we have a misunderstanding. I thought you knew some browsers that support some sort of please-do-track-me-quietly.
> So, GDPR?
Right but about all data and all identities. You believe that holder of cookie likes cats? If my browser holds that cookie you should be forced by law to offer UI where I can see the preference for cats and possibly change it or delete it.