Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

Post by brett40324 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #124

alkonaut wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to use external tracking and be GDPR-compliant, you must offer a clear choice ("yes/no") and you must not use pre-ticked boxes (i.e. an opt-out approach) Exactly this. Basically what the GDPR says is: if your business doesn't require the data, you cant use it without the user's consent. And data used for better advertising is NOT essential to e.g. a news site. What's more, the regulation syas that you c…

This is the view of a US person: These are private owned and operated web sites. The site owner determines what is "essential." If you do not agree to to the terms, do not use the site. If you don't want to be tracked for advertising, that's on you to install ad blockers.

Post by nearbuy » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

wsy wrote: post #322

cortesoft wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether we like it or not, tracking data used for ads is the currency of the free internet. It is how things are paid for. This is like a government saying to a restaurant "You can't discriminate against people who don't want to pay you money for the food. You can ask them if they are willing to give you money for the sandwich, but if they say no, you still have to give them the sandwich"

I think a better example would be: you can only get food if you give us your address and consent that all other restaurants in the vicinity send marketing mail to you. You also consent that we and they exchange information about when and what you ordered. To me it sounds very sensible to make such a business practice illegal.

Post by white-flame » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

dmortin wrote: post #48

brylie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. That is what GDPR and other efforts like some ad blockers are trying to protect against. The emerging consensus is surveillance capitalism is unethical and increasingly illegal.

> Advertisement doesn't require profiling and surveillance. Targeted ads pay much more. Eliminating targeted ads can result in a revenue drop of 50% or more, effectively killing small sites which most of the time make not much more money from ads than what is needed for financing themselves.

Post by brett40324 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:21 AM UTC

dmortin wrote: post #43

lbarrow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that something being 'required for product to function' refers to technical requirements, not revenue requirements. So, yes I agree that it's a problem for small sites (or really anyone who tries to make money on ads).

So this is a bad rule, because enforcing it will result in eliminating independent small sites which have no other means for financing themseves than ads.

Post by dasil003 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

sbov wrote: post #417

mort96 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure I agree with out that the law wouldn't achieve its purpose even if it was implemented "correctly", and it certainly doesn't achieve its purpose with how it's implemented by websites today. I considered adding a short sentence about that, but ended up not doing it. I'm just tired of the vast amount of misinformation out there, and people discussing as if the directive applies to all cookies and only to…

> I'm not entirely sure if a user account at an online store would require consent; in my view, cookies would be "strictly necessary" to provide the user experience a user expects You can 100% support a logged in account experience without cookies. Java, for example, supports jsession id in the URL for people with cookies disabled. This id belongs to a session that is managed by the app server, which you can use to s…