3 ms·

EU doesn't require these BS popups. Both GDPR and the earlier "cookie directive" (the ePrivacy directive) only require user consent before setting cookies (or u

by janoc 6y ago

EU doesn't require these BS popups. Both GDPR and the earlier "cookie directive" (the ePrivacy directive) only require user consent before setting cookies (or using other similar technologies, not only cookies) that have privacy implications (e.g. user tracking, advertising) - and then that consent can be also managed by other means, there is no requirement to have such a popup. Normal cookies required for the functioning of the website - e.g. session tracking, user input, etc. are exempted and don't require user consent. See for ex. here (the official cookie guidelines for EU institutions' websites): https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/WEBGUIDE/04.+Cookies https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/WEBGUIDE/04.+Cookies Don't blame these BS popups, interstitials, click-through wrappers etc. on Europe, that's purely site operators' laziness, legal CYA (force these wrappers even where not required) and greed where various analytics and tracking cookies (which do require consent) are being deployed.

Vanit 6y ago
The penalty for screwing it up is 20m euros or 4% turnover - why is it not surprising that devs play it safe? This is entirely the laws fault for driving this behaviour.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  That is not correct. This is the penalty for wilfully screwing it up, and refusing to engage with the regulator when challenged. The most likely outcome of being reported is some advice from the regulator about how to comply.
  - thereisnospork 6y ago
    > This is the penalty for wilfully screwing it up It isn't incidental that the penalty for being accused of willfully screwing it up is quite high: having to defend oneself against a 20 million dollar judgement.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      By now it should be known that doesn't happen.
      - thereisnospork 6y ago
        Says who? Even if it doesn't today, what authoritative source says it won't tomorrow? You can't act surprised when people drive 55 in a 65mph zone because 'no one gets a 20 million dollar ticket for accidentally doing 5 over.'
        anoncake 6y ago
        It's simply how things work in countries that aren't failing like the USA. Your paranoia is unfounded.
        thereisnospork 6y ago
        Yup you are right, it is definitely every website with a cookie banner that's wrong. Can't possibly be the result of regulation which protects important things like privacy. When the world disagrees with what you think should be happening the problem is not with the world but with your understanding of it.
        anoncake 6y ago
        "Eat shit! Millions of flies can't be wrong." I prefer critical thinking over appeals to the majority.
  - neximo64 6y ago
    > 'wilfully' subjective and at the discretion of the accuser. There's a saying somewhere: Simple rules give rise to complex behaviour. Complex rules give rise to simplistic behaviour.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      So you think the law shouldn't make a difference between murder and accidents either?
      - thereisnospork 6y ago
        Are you volunteering your site to be the test case?
        anoncake 6y ago
        If I had one, of course.
stupidcar 6y ago
I absolutely blame the EU for this. The job of any political organisation isn't just to blindly regulate, but to predict the likely response of the regulated industry, including in a worst case scenario. I worked in web dev when these regulations were introduced, and any idiot could see that most companies would take the laziest, safest route to complying with them, in a way that would put a massive burden of inconvenience on the user. If the EU was competent, they wouldn't have needed warning about this outcome. But they were warned, again and again and again. They chose to ignore it and screwed over their constituents for nothing.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  The majority of these are not compliant either way because they are either "opt-out" (with pre-ticked checkboxes) or make it difficult to not grant consent/withdraw consent (declining usually requires much more clicks than accepting). What the EU did wrong is not the design of the law, it's the lack of enforcement. Enforcement of the law will fine anyone requesting consent in an annoying/obnoxious way and will clean up the current mess we're in.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Well yes, I agree. They should've banned tracking cookies outright, informed consent or not. Alas, they tried to leave space for honest businesses to play with - which is always a bad idea where it comes to the advertising industry.
u801e 6y ago
> Normal cookies required for the functioning of the website If I happen to click a link on a news aggregator website like this one, then why would the website I visit (possibly for the first time) require my browser to accept cookies?
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  A technical answer might be that they want to implement a policy to grant you free access to one article per week, and than demand payment to access more than that, and a cookie is simple way to do that (yes, easy to circumvent, but that’s pretty uninteresting from a legal sense) I don’t think GDPR demands “consent” for this though.
RHSeeger 6y ago
It works the same as the "cancer causing" law in CA. Because the penalty isn't worth the risk, it's almost universally considered better to include the warning even if you don't "think" you need it, because you could be wrong. And being wrong (especially when including the notice costs virtually nothing) is definitely a risky thing.

by janoc 6y ago

Vanit 6y ago

The penalty for screwing it up is 20m euros or 4% turnover - why is it not surprising that devs play it safe? This is entirely the laws fault for driving this behaviour.

jimnotgym 6y ago
That is not correct. This is the penalty for wilfully screwing it up, and refusing to engage with the regulator when challenged. The most likely outcome of being reported is some advice from the regulator about how to comply.
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  > This is the penalty for wilfully screwing it up It isn't incidental that the penalty for being accused of willfully screwing it up is quite high: having to defend oneself against a 20 million dollar judgement.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    By now it should be known that doesn't happen.
    - thereisnospork 6y ago
      Says who? Even if it doesn't today, what authoritative source says it won't tomorrow? You can't act surprised when people drive 55 in a 65mph zone because 'no one gets a 20 million dollar ticket for accidentally doing 5 over.'
      - anoncake 6y ago
        It's simply how things work in countries that aren't failing like the USA. Your paranoia is unfounded.
        thereisnospork 6y ago
        Yup you are right, it is definitely every website with a cookie banner that's wrong. Can't possibly be the result of regulation which protects important things like privacy. When the world disagrees with what you think should be happening the problem is not with the world but with your understanding of it.
        anoncake 6y ago
        "Eat shit! Millions of flies can't be wrong." I prefer critical thinking over appeals to the majority.
- neximo64 6y ago
  > 'wilfully' subjective and at the discretion of the accuser. There's a saying somewhere: Simple rules give rise to complex behaviour. Complex rules give rise to simplistic behaviour.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    So you think the law shouldn't make a difference between murder and accidents either?
    - thereisnospork 6y ago
      Are you volunteering your site to be the test case?
      - anoncake 6y ago
        If I had one, of course.

stupidcar 6y ago

I absolutely blame the EU for this. The job of any political organisation isn't just to blindly regulate, but to predict the likely response of the regulated industry, including in a worst case scenario. I worked in web dev when these regulations were introduced, and any idiot could see that most companies would take the laziest, safest route to complying with them, in a way that would put a massive burden of inconvenience on the user. If the EU was competent, they wouldn't have needed warning about this outcome. But they were warned, again and again and again. They chose to ignore it and screwed over their constituents for nothing.

Nextgrid 6y ago
The majority of these are not compliant either way because they are either "opt-out" (with pre-ticked checkboxes) or make it difficult to not grant consent/withdraw consent (declining usually requires much more clicks than accepting). What the EU did wrong is not the design of the law, it's the lack of enforcement. Enforcement of the law will fine anyone requesting consent in an annoying/obnoxious way and will clean up the current mess we're in.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Well yes, I agree. They should've banned tracking cookies outright, informed consent or not. Alas, they tried to leave space for honest businesses to play with - which is always a bad idea where it comes to the advertising industry.

u801e 6y ago

> Normal cookies required for the functioning of the website If I happen to click a link on a news aggregator website like this one, then why would the website I visit (possibly for the first time) require my browser to accept cookies?

CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
A technical answer might be that they want to implement a policy to grant you free access to one article per week, and than demand payment to access more than that, and a cookie is simple way to do that (yes, easy to circumvent, but that’s pretty uninteresting from a legal sense) I don’t think GDPR demands “consent” for this though.

RHSeeger 6y ago

It works the same as the "cancer causing" law in CA. Because the penalty isn't worth the risk, it's almost universally considered better to include the warning even if you don't "think" you need it, because you could be wrong. And being wrong (especially when including the notice costs virtually nothing) is definitely a risky thing.