Why they didn't just force browsers to implement it the same way browsers ask if you want to share location data or mic access is beyond me.
Kill The Cookie Banner
401–410 of 621 posts
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some countries already have provisions for this. For example, in The Netherlands there is a legally mandated three-day period after signing the contract for purchasing a home during which the buyer can still call off the deal. The reasoning for this is that it is a seller's market, with demand far outnumbering supply. In practice it is very common these days to end up in a bidding war, and even forego any kind of "sa…
Your specific example is not intended to address buyer's remorse, but mortgage financing. After agreeing to a house sale, the buyer has three days to have their bank sign off on it. Yes, it's nice that it slightly alleviates pressure but the primary goal is to streamline house sales by making the financing details part of the finalization instead of the decision-making process.
I don't believe you’re correct. Certainly in Australia the cooling-off period is all about buyer’s remorse; “subject to finance” is a completely unrelated condition commonly added to the contract, and even with pre-approval it’s probably seldom resolved within three days.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#403The most frustrating thing about the cookie banner is that the solution was always obvious: just use the DNT setting on your browser (Do Not Track). It already existed. However, powerful interest groups like ad companies that profit from your attention (which hysterically virtually powers the Internet today) were able to stop it from happening. It was debated way back in 2009 when the GDPR was being developed. Iirc t…
And in a truly twisted move, ad tech companies were also using Do Not Track as part of browser fingerprinting.
This industry is a paperclip maximizer, and it needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#404The other approach to killing the cookie banner is simply to declare that such a thing cannot constitute “informed consent”. (Perhaps: “ticking a checkbox and/or clicking a button cannot constitute informed consent”; and see what they try next.) From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them…
> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way. This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data…
Usually when you hit reject it opens some insane modal with 5 million checkboxes. While accept always makes it go away fastest.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
"necessary only" also tends to have a malicious compliance aspect where they don't store a cookie recording your preference and show the banner on every single page until you click accept.
I don't see that as malicious. Is my consent record "strictly necessary"? No. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure they love that, but if sites saved that preference when only necessary was selected, I’m sure a bunch of people would be screaming that they weren’t following the law.
There is no legal requirement to ask for consent for first party functional cookies. The cookie banner is only for invasive 3rd party trackers.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you are. The legislative process around EPD/EPR fully anticipated the malicious compliance and it became a back-and-forth political football long before anything was passed. The legislators were never dumb and the corporations were always greedy+powerful.
If they fully anticipated this then surely they could've fully anticipated how annoying and useless cookie banners are? There is nothing stopping a website from using cookies regardless of the banner. If they are outside EU jurisdiction then there won't be any consequences either. The legislators were and are dumb. They have wasted an enormous amount of collective time for no benefit . Big corporations continued doin…
> surely they could've fully anticipated how annoying and useless cookie banners are
They did. The laws were airtight in this regard. They simply lost -- whether through a last minute "tweak" or undermined enforcement mechanism I do not know, but I do know that the current state of affairs was fully anticipated and headed off at the point where I reviewed the proposal. Your vitriol is bass ackwards -- the lesson is to strengthen the walls between corporations and the legislative process and support enforcement mechanisms, because those were the places where the process failed. Not the intelligence of legislators. Otherwise you will keep losing to the corporations, and you will deserve to.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
"necessary only" also tends to have a malicious compliance aspect where they don't store a cookie recording your preference and show the banner on every single page until you click accept.
I don't see that as malicious. Is my consent record "strictly necessary"? No. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure they love that, but if sites saved that preference when only necessary was selected, I’m sure a bunch of people would be screaming that they weren’t following the law.
The entire banner is malicious. They don't need consent for necessary or functional cookies. They only need consent to track you - at no benefit to you ever.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not wrong in the EU, you don't need to ask for consent nor notify about cookies which are required to make the site functional. Tracking and ads don't fall under that though, which is why every site these days does need to ask for your consent.
No, you need to always ask for consent for cookies if they come from a third party, regardless if they are only required to enable functionality. You also need to ask for consent each time data leaves the website (for example when loading an image from a third party host). You can't even load a font file from a third party server because the users IP reaches that server without consent. Cookie banners don't just hand…
Putting assets on a 3rd party server is indeed a great way to track people. They can completely fuck off with all of that as well.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#409So much legislation about privacy that involves "oh those bad companies" that ends up putting the onus on the individual to manage it all. I'm visiting a website, i don't want to make a legal agreement with every website ... Social media bad for kids? Everyone hand over your ID at the door ...
The companies want to track everything you do on the web. EU passes a law that says they have to ask for permission first. They all comply maliciously because they still just want to track you.
Then you blame the government.
Re: Kill The Cookie Banner
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do
Sloppy, non-privacy-preserving "analytics" set up by some communications intern ≠ malice. They can mean well and still do a poor job. True privacy on the internet is notoriously hard.
I don't think you can handwave responsibility like that, even if your theoretical were true it's still the responsibility of the org.