501–510 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What else would you need my IP address for?
Uh...DDoS and spam protection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law isn't that bad actually, just that the courts have been very slow. The dark UI patterns are actually illegal and have been judged so in court now. This realization just has to trickle down to the companies writing these cookie banners.
My take is that law tries to dictate UX more than just set groundrules which good laws do. They pre-emptively set the law such that it prevents any use when the focus is on misuse. The law is about 1st party and 3rd party cookies, not just 3rd party. In an ideal case, if it was just a law, a simpler wording could be "you are allowed to collect anonymized data, but not monetize/share it without permission from users.…
> Moreover, it's vaguely worded so we companies do not know if they have committed a GDPR offence.
Only if they are trying to skirt the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Almost all websites make money through ads, Doesn't require tracking of individuals. > or at least keep logs of user activity to help them optimize their website Doesn't require tracking of individuals.
> Doesn't require tracking of individuals. Only if you maintain your own ad inventory, instead of using Google/Facebook ads like 90% of online advertisers do. And neither of those platforms work without installing their scripts on your site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our lawyers told us otherwise. Regardless of the answer here, the fact that there's still a debate about what basic functionality requires a cookie banner is really a testament to how bad this legislation is. How long has this been around, 20 years? And there's still widespread debate and lack of understanding as to what specific functionality requires a cookie banner?
Here is an authoritative source[0]: > consent is not required [for] cookies that are strictly necessary to provide an online service that the person explicitly requested. e.g. […] when your customers use a shopping basket So shopping carts (user clicked to add to cart) and notification preferences (user clicked to indicate preference) don’t require consent. Same for authentication cookies. The page is quite clear; th…
Imagine a market in which companies charge a lot of hidden fees behind their customers' back, and users are not happy when they realize after the fact. The law is updated to say you are not allowed to charge the user a fee unless you tell him in advance. Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the m…
Agree. How much corporate propaganda are people consuming that legislators are seen as wholly responsible for the bad behavior and malicious compliance actions of corporations? What does it say about the relationship between businesses and consumers that the first response to this bad behavior is to shout "look what you made them do!" Seemingly it is everyone's fault except the bad actors themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The experience you describe is the fault of websites which chose to make things that way. The article goes into more detail on this point: There Is No Cookie Banner Law. It's important to note that we didn't have to go through the banners after the law, either. We only had to go through them after website operators intentionally picked the most disruptive and annoying popup to serve us. We can blame them. They chose…
Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse post-regulation. > The experience you describe is the fault of websites which chose to make things that way. I don't disagree. But they were less annoying before. So make them go back to being less annoying.
> make them go back to being less annoying
That is a request between you and them (the websites), unless you're talking about legislating a banner-less opt-out, or maybe just willing to file a complaint against the website with a data protection authority, if the banner is already illegally annoying.
Websites have the right to annoy their users with cookie popups, with or without the GDPR (ironically , the GDPR actually has some protections here, websites simply break the law). Unfortunately, it seems many are choosing to exercise that right because they make money doing so.
The law may be a one-liner that just wants to protect the users privacy. But this vagueness makes this law so extremely bad. Companys don't know anymore what's allowed and what not, so in order not to risk getting sued by some greedy shenanigans they just put up some cookie consent wall up. Can i use tools like Microsoft Clarity or Google Pages without getting sued by not having some cookie banner? Who knows anymore without getting an expensive lawyer and then i have to deal with the expensive technical changes required to implement these regulation wich especially hurts small or one-person software shops while big co doesn't care anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, it is just showing that most companies are collecting more data than they need. You don’t need a banner for the data that is necessary for the service to work at minimum level. There is no role for the consent since the site won’t work otherwise.
> You don’t need a banner for the data that is necessary for the service to work at minimum level. We were advised by our lawyers (a top SV tech law firm) that we should include a cookie banner in the EU even if we're only using cookies for functions like login. After eventually switching legal counsel (for unrelated reasons), we were told the same thing by our new counsel. Either EU law covers cookie banners that us…
So, how did you ever expect the lawyers not to recommend adding the banner? That's like going to a plumber and ask them if you should DIY or not some installation. Of course they're going to recommend you get a professional...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How arrogant to assume your position should be the default one, and people who don’t agree with you are - of course - easy prey for propaganda.
Seems to be a common tactic from a certain faction currently in power in the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I clicked on that link and immediately got a cookie banner. Am I missing something?
I don't know; I clicked on the link and saw no cookie banner.