6 ms·
> We got nag screens and little improvment in privacy. We definitely got the nag screens¹, but improvement? [1] Which is totally inferior solution technically
by Yaggo 9y ago
> We got nag screens and little improvment in privacy.
We definitely got the nag screens¹, but improvement?
[1] Which is totally inferior solution technically & ux-wise, because the user/client voluntarily accepts the cookie from the server, and there's already setting for that in the browser.
- lloeki 9y agoThe nags are only mandated for tracking, cookies are only a implementation detail. The EU directive explicitly mentions that, does not even focus on cookies, and states that cookies (or whatever) pertaining to site operation (such as login/cart/whatever) do not require nagging. Thus the proper browser setting is DNT, not accepting cookies. But everyone construed that cookies <=> nag, because nobody RTFM.
- dalbasal 9y agoI don’t think it’s a RTFM thing. The lawyers RTFM, and this is what they came up with. The legislation called for informed consent. Two core issues were left open to definition, in practice. [1] What requires informed consent? [2] What counts as informed consent. For question 2, a standard answer (nag screen) emerged. Question 1 is trickier. The cheapest & easiest solution is to just nag, so that’s the default. If you want to drop the nag screen you can deal with question 1, but most don’t bother. Either they want the tracking, they want the easiest option or they want legal CYA. I think the legislative intentions were good, but this was a hard area to legislate. It didn’t work, IMO.