3 ms·

This seems like it should have been handled as a browser feature, not an add-on to every damn website. Especially since they tend to somehow forget that you cli

This seems like it should have been handled as a browser feature, not an add-on to every damn website. Especially since they tend to somehow forget that you clicked accept or reject and keep asking you.

chapium 7y ago
Whats harder, change 5 browsers or 2 billion websites.
- luckylion 7y ago
  The big question: what makes more money for lawyers (who write & vote on the laws)?
  - IgorPartola 7y ago
    Nah, the Illuminati are funding it. It’s fine.
  - chapium 7y ago
    True, its probably easier to collect rent indefinitely on websites rather than convince Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple to change their browsers.
onli 7y ago
This is handled as a browser feature. Regulators just did not care - and most probably did not know about that.
- Deukhoofd 7y ago
  It probably wasn't in 2002, when the current cookie law was written. The new ePrivacy Regulation does want to replace it with a browser function though: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-epriv...
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Internet Explorer 6 gave you control over your cookies. It was even recommended that you would set the slider to block all or most cookies. I'm unsure about previous versions.
- kevinmgranger 7y ago
  What feature?
- boomlinde 7y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, the "cookie law" doesn't only concern cookies, and it does not concern all cookies.
gpderetta 7y ago
how can the browser know what a cookie is for?
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  The browser can ask me if I’m willing to accept cookies from a given website and remember my choice. It already allows me to do most of this, just does not have the pop up UI.
- aembleton 7y ago
  Perhaps browsers could look for a /cookies.json file that provides more information in a standard format about what the cookies are and why they are needed. Then the browser can display this however it is needed and let the user decide which to accept. Plugins could also automate this for the most popular websites so that only the necessary ones are used. I just block all non-first party cookies with uMatrix. It's not perfect though and sometimes others have to be enabled, especially Google otherwise you'll spend your life completing Captchas.
dirtydroog 7y ago
Legally they have to show the consent screen again if anything changes, such as them working with a new vendor, of if the IAB releases a new version of the Global Vendor List.
pndy 7y ago
Definitely because this whole concept of consent, choices and protection against tracking done via modals operating on cookies or other temporary forms of settings, is pointless if the browser cache is being cleared either manually or automatically by predefined parameter or, when user accesses site via different browser or machine. The multiple devices ownership is another issue itself - everything becomes a logistical nightmare if user would like to set its choices on each of devices it interacts with, for each of site it wants to use or access. The problem seems to be almost non-existent if browser handles the choice - but then another issue emerges: how, what to display when users wishes to not being tracked. Timed content? Reader's view? Plain text? DNT exists but either is not respected or as I've read around, being used to sieve out and track those who do not wish to be tracked. In a perfect world where everyone is playing fair, site owners would be able to convince users that tracking is beneficial for them and such benefits for users would exist and would convince users to whitelist sites. But sadly, our reality is different and we're facing the aggressive modals - "give us consent or else you won't see the content". I do understand that there's a need of earning money but this shouldn't be done by deceptive tactics of dark patterns and empty "we care for your privacy" slogans. But then I also don't believe that we'll face another "revision" of how tracking choices are handled done by regulators - not with Google around who's implanting this idea that Google Chrome is the Internet and we don't need address bar.

chapium 7y ago

Whats harder, change 5 browsers or 2 billion websites.

luckylion 7y ago
The big question: what makes more money for lawyers (who write & vote on the laws)?
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  Nah, the Illuminati are funding it. It’s fine.
- chapium 7y ago
  True, its probably easier to collect rent indefinitely on websites rather than convince Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple to change their browsers.

onli 7y ago

This is handled as a browser feature. Regulators just did not care - and most probably did not know about that.

Deukhoofd 7y ago
It probably wasn't in 2002, when the current cookie law was written. The new ePrivacy Regulation does want to replace it with a browser function though: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-epriv...
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Internet Explorer 6 gave you control over your cookies. It was even recommended that you would set the slider to block all or most cookies. I'm unsure about previous versions.
kevinmgranger 7y ago
What feature?
boomlinde 7y ago
Contrary to popular belief, the "cookie law" doesn't only concern cookies, and it does not concern all cookies.

gpderetta 7y ago

how can the browser know what a cookie is for?

IgorPartola 7y ago
The browser can ask me if I’m willing to accept cookies from a given website and remember my choice. It already allows me to do most of this, just does not have the pop up UI.
aembleton 7y ago
Perhaps browsers could look for a /cookies.json file that provides more information in a standard format about what the cookies are and why they are needed. Then the browser can display this however it is needed and let the user decide which to accept. Plugins could also automate this for the most popular websites so that only the necessary ones are used. I just block all non-first party cookies with uMatrix. It's not perfect though and sometimes others have to be enabled, especially Google otherwise you'll spend your life completing Captchas.

dirtydroog 7y ago

Legally they have to show the consent screen again if anything changes, such as them working with a new vendor, of if the IAB releases a new version of the Global Vendor List.

pndy 7y ago

Definitely because this whole concept of consent, choices and protection against tracking done via modals operating on cookies or other temporary forms of settings, is pointless if the browser cache is being cleared either manually or automatically by predefined parameter or, when user accesses site via different browser or machine. The multiple devices ownership is another issue itself - everything becomes a logistical nightmare if user would like to set its choices on each of devices it interacts with, for each of site it wants to use or access. The problem seems to be almost non-existent if browser handles the choice - but then another issue emerges: how, what to display when users wishes to not being tracked. Timed content? Reader's view? Plain text? DNT exists but either is not respected or as I've read around, being used to sieve out and track those who do not wish to be tracked. In a perfect world where everyone is playing fair, site owners would be able to convince users that tracking is beneficial for them and such benefits for users would exist and would convince users to whitelist sites. But sadly, our reality is different and we're facing the aggressive modals - "give us consent or else you won't see the content". I do understand that there's a need of earning money but this shouldn't be done by deceptive tactics of dark patterns and empty "we care for your privacy" slogans. But then I also don't believe that we'll face another "revision" of how tracking choices are handled done by regulators - not with Google around who's implanting this idea that Google Chrome is the Internet and we don't need address bar.