How can you comply with the current requirements without cookie banners? Why would EU governments use cookie banners if they are just nonsense meant to degrade approval of GDPR?
By not tracking and setting any third party cookies. Just using strictly functional cookies is fine, just put a disclaimer somewhere in the footer and explain as those are already allowed and cannot be disabled anyway.
The EU's own government websites are polluted with cookie banners. They couldn't even figure out how to comply with their own laws except to just spam the user with cookie consent forms.
I don't get why people conclude from the cookie hell that "regulations are bad". If those goddamn websites got actual fines for those dark patterns, they wouldn't do it. The EU should just be stricter with the regulations.
The EU's own government websites are littered with cookie consent banners. They want the data too.
I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.
That 50% figure seems extremely dubious. I'd expect either methodological failures, or a definition of "costs" that I disagree with (e.g. fair-competition regulations preventing price-hikes, "costing" EU companies the profit they could obtain from a cartel). However, skimming the report ( https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-r... ), I can't find the 50% figure.
I agree if we look at what has happened to the EU over the last 2 decades the costs have to be much higher. 50% seems optimistic at best for how far behind the EU has gotten.
Most are running ads and needs to track the performance of their ad spend I believe, at least that what we do. We don't care at all about tracking anything other than x amount of users came from x ad source with some basic device info like mobile/desktop/etc. We tried to get rid of any tracking banners but have been unable to do so.
So can’t abuse people’s data without their consent is being strangled? Is that like I’m strangled with my start up of “cheapdvds.com” because I can’t sell someone else’s data?
That's an egregiously poor faith interpretation of what they said.
Ughhh here we go again. Every time GDPR is brought up on HN, the same "it's super simple to comply, just read it yourself!" religious incantation gets repeated ad-nauseam. I think it's because people love the idea of what they think GDPR actually represents (the fuzzy abstract idea of "privacy"), without ever diving into any of the implementation details. Almost nobody on this forum has ever talked to a lawyer about…
> but will continue to go back and forth if GDPR remains as-is. Yes, it should remain as is and enforced . Yes, storing your users' data in the US is extremely problematic because the US really couldn't give two shits about privacy, or user data.
The EU nations can't even get their own government's running on non US software/clouds. If GDPR was actually enforced like that you might as well just dissolve the EU and let each nation apply to join the USA for all the relevancy the EU will have on the world afterwords.
In almost every developed country the rules are exactly the same. No hairnet, no licence? Lemonade Stand Ltd can and will be shut down. The main difference is lenience in punishment which tends to tail off and disappear at the lemonade stand scale, and be stricter for large multinationals. I wish you were right though.
I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion. The answer is a simple google away: smaller companies face lower taxes, lower standards of documentation on health & safety, don't need work councils, less reporting on workspace/financials, etc etc etc.
My point is these societies have the rule of law, and the vast majority of laws don't have a "unless you have 50 employees or less" or "unless your revenue is under $1 mil" qualifier. The difference in treatment is often a complex precedent of leniency in enforcement or punishment, but ultimately the rules are the same for everyone, even if you have to upset the 8 year old selling lemonade.
I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…
Who is the audience your comment is trying to reach? Who are these mysterious "companies"? It's important to realize companies are made of people. Someone had to explicitly code the dark pattern in the GDPR cookie dialog. Ever notice the button for "Accept All" is big and shiny, while refusing all is more often than not a cumbersome, multi-click process? That's not an accident. That was coded by people. People around…
IMO, this is a great example of the lack of professionalism in the software development field. No individual software developer is responsible for violating the GDPR's prohibitions on cookie banners in a legal sense, but we could be. Real engineers have that leverage: A PE who thinks a bridge's design amounts to professional malpractice gets to refuse to approve that design, and anybody who the employer could find to approve it risks their entire career, on top of personal liability.
This is such an important change for Europe. I've worked with 100+ start-ups as a consultant, and I've talked to EU ones who have been strangled by some of the regulations.
I do not care about 100s of startups and how they want to use my data for advertisement or other things they benefit from. I care about keeping my personal data private so it will be more difficult to use for profiling me for whatever (whatever!) reason, but all are for other's benefit on no or marginal benefit for me in overwhelmingly major part of the cases. If startups cannot do properly, then they should not do a…
Sure but since the EU has destroyed it's own innovation so much soon you'll get no choice in the matter.
Who is the audience your comment is trying to reach? Who are these mysterious "companies"? It's important to realize companies are made of people. Someone had to explicitly code the dark pattern in the GDPR cookie dialog. Ever notice the button for "Accept All" is big and shiny, while refusing all is more often than not a cumbersome, multi-click process? That's not an accident. That was coded by people. People around…
My theory is that companies are not the sum of their employees. Employees are generally good; toxic humans are a small minority (unfortunately they tend to be over-represented at the head of companies). But put employees together into a profit-maximisation machine, and the machine will try to maximise profit, with dark patterns and downright evil things. Similar with our species as a whole: nobody is actively working…
That explains passively malignant processes, like not radically overhauling your business to address climate change. It doesn't explain actively malevolent things like "let's bury the "Decline Cookies" dialog under 3 layers of clicks. That's a proactive choice, that some software developer chose to implement.
I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…
Reminder that cookie banners are not a regulation problem, they're a privacy problem. If you don't spy on your users you don't have to have cookie banners.