4 ms·
> lack of elegant ways to present this compliance Seems like moving it into the browser permissions model could be a good way - in a similar way to websites ca
by SifJar 7y ago
> lack of elegant ways to present this compliance
Seems like moving it into the browser permissions model could be a good way - in a similar way to websites can ask for permission to show notifications or use your camera, and the browser handles prompting the user etc.
At the very least, it'd be more consistent across websites, you could see in your browser settings at any time which sites you have allowed to store cookies, probably set a global allow/reject etc.
I'm sure there are various reasons why this hasn't been done though
- rusk 7y ago> I'm sure there are various reasons ... like requiring explicit consent :) Really interesting human behaviour occurs when the subject isn't being watched. There's numerous headings for this in various fields: "hawthorne effect", "panopticon", "heisenberg effect" etc. Of course, in principle the "cookie banner" should alert you to this, that's the point. But after a while people just get used to them. At least it's better than them not being there though ... can't say you weren't warned!
- SifJar 7y agoexplicit consent... like what is obtained by browser before allowing notifications or camera access etc.? I don't see how it's different?