5 ms·

Thats actually what the new ePrivacy regulation is planning. It's just not been adopted still, although it originally should have been 2018. To quote: "Simple

by p410n3 6y ago

Thats actually what the new ePrivacy regulation is planning. It's just not been adopted still, although it originally should have been 2018. To quote: "Simpler rules on cookies: the cookie provision, which has resulted in an overload of consent requests for internet users, will be streamlined. The new rule will be more user-friendly as browser settings will provide for an easy way to accept or refuse tracking cookies and other identifiers. The proposal also clarifies that no consent is needed for non-privacy intrusive cookies improving internet experience (e.g. to remember shopping cart history) or cookies used by a website to count the number of visitors." Source: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-epriv...

peterhil 6y ago
Finally! EU should have required browser vendors in the first place to handle the intent of the privacy regulation on GDPR, to avoid having this discussion...
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  The extant ePrivacy directive is from 2002. So... maybe you should go back in time and tell the EU back at the turn of the millennium that...
  - peterhil 6y ago
    Oh, so why it didn’t happen so that browser vendors and W3C did not add some HTTP header to disallow tracking, and browsers did not represent users options to manage their privacy, instead of these mandatory annoying popups?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  A law requiring websites to honor 'do not track' header would be sufficient and require no big changes to internet protocols or browsers. People say that DNT failed because it was selected by default - but no, it failed because compliance was voluntary. The EU principles require explicit opt-in confirmation, so a browser setting that's set to "not track" by default is a reasonable way to do it, it only needs enforcement to ensure that websites (in EU jurisdiction) treat the DNT header as binding instruction to not track that user.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    There are plenty of laws that would have been sufficient. One of them would be to make browsers responsible for providing sensible defaults. And while the public perception might think the webpages are at fault it was the browsers that were responsible for storing and broadcasting private data. Arguably without clear and informed consent. Of course there are problems with requiring software to have sensible default settings, but I reckon most problems with any legislation are due to the fact that none of them address the fact that cookies are a perfectly private system (with the user in full control of their own data) provided browsers don't send this data with every request without permission.
jka 6y ago
It's been a little while since I researched[1] this, but I'd recommend spending a little time to find out what the latest state-of-play is. There was definitely a prior movement to push these cookie consent settings down to the browser (where I think they have the most chance of being respectful of the user and their consent choices) - but the situation changed later during subsequent ePrivacy regulation drafts. Please voice your concerns with your MEP if you can - displays of support can and will change policy directions. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283

by p410n3 6y ago

peterhil 6y ago

Finally! EU should have required browser vendors in the first place to handle the intent of the privacy regulation on GDPR, to avoid having this discussion...

M2Ys4U 6y ago
The extant ePrivacy directive is from 2002. So... maybe you should go back in time and tell the EU back at the turn of the millennium that...
- peterhil 6y ago
  Oh, so why it didn’t happen so that browser vendors and W3C did not add some HTTP header to disallow tracking, and browsers did not represent users options to manage their privacy, instead of these mandatory annoying popups?
PeterisP 6y ago
A law requiring websites to honor 'do not track' header would be sufficient and require no big changes to internet protocols or browsers. People say that DNT failed because it was selected by default - but no, it failed because compliance was voluntary. The EU principles require explicit opt-in confirmation, so a browser setting that's set to "not track" by default is a reasonable way to do it, it only needs enforcement to ensure that websites (in EU jurisdiction) treat the DNT header as binding instruction to not track that user.
- contravariant 6y ago
  There are plenty of laws that would have been sufficient. One of them would be to make browsers responsible for providing sensible defaults. And while the public perception might think the webpages are at fault it was the browsers that were responsible for storing and broadcasting private data. Arguably without clear and informed consent. Of course there are problems with requiring software to have sensible default settings, but I reckon most problems with any legislation are due to the fact that none of them address the fact that cookies are a perfectly private system (with the user in full control of their own data) provided browsers don't send this data with every request without permission.

jka 6y ago

It's been a little while since I researched[1] this, but I'd recommend spending a little time to find out what the latest state-of-play is. There was definitely a prior movement to push these cookie consent settings down to the browser (where I think they have the most chance of being respectful of the user and their consent choices) - but the situation changed later during subsequent ePrivacy regulation drafts. Please voice your concerns with your MEP if you can - displays of support can and will change policy directions. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283