11 ms·

That is part of the ePrivacy Regulation (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/e

That is part of the ePrivacy Regulation (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-epriv...) which was supposed be implemented at the same time as the GDPR, but got stuck because of (so far) successful lobbying by advertising companies: 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.

awb 6y ago
> 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. Browsers have provided this functionality for 10+ years. Why the law didn't target the user/browser level instead of the website level is beyond me.
- notriddle 6y ago
  The browser knows that the cookie exists, but it has no way of knowing how the server is going to use it, or what the cookie is actually for. A single cookie might even be simultaneously both, and force the user to accept cross-site tracking in order for the site to work correctly. I guess there's complication zero-knowledge proofs that could solve this problem, but they're too slow right now.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >The browser knows that the cookie exists, but it has no way of knowing how the server is going to use it, or what the cookie is actually for. There was a standard for that, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P. There's no reason why something similar can't be implemented now.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Browsers don't have a way to block tracking cookies without collateral damage.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

awb 6y ago

> 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. Browsers have provided this functionality for 10+ years. Why the law didn't target the user/browser level instead of the website level is beyond me.

notriddle 6y ago
The browser knows that the cookie exists, but it has no way of knowing how the server is going to use it, or what the cookie is actually for. A single cookie might even be simultaneously both, and force the user to accept cross-site tracking in order for the site to work correctly. I guess there's complication zero-knowledge proofs that could solve this problem, but they're too slow right now.
- gruez 6y ago
  >The browser knows that the cookie exists, but it has no way of knowing how the server is going to use it, or what the cookie is actually for. There was a standard for that, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P. There's no reason why something similar can't be implemented now.
anoncake 6y ago
Browsers don't have a way to block tracking cookies without collateral damage.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]