From the technical side: We had this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P ). It didn't catch on. > It makes no sense that blo

From the technical side: We had this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P ). It didn't catch on. > It makes no sense that blocking cookies should be done via inconststent and dubious interfaces implemented by the websites themselves. It also makes no sense that authentication should be done via inconsistent and dubious interfaces implemented by the websites themselves. Browsers have offered login prompts for years, yet they're usually avoided. Some sites hijack scrollbars, so it's not particularly surprising. From the legal side: GDPR is not about "cookie banners". It's perfectly fine to use cookies, or any other personal/tracking data, if the user's consent is implied. For example login sessions, shopping carts, game highscores, etc. would break without cookies or something equivalent, and those are features that users want, so we can assume their implicit consent for such cookies. GDPR is perfectly unobtrusive (for end users, at least). On the other hand, users don't want to be tracked and surveilled. Hence anyone collecting personal data for those reasons cannot assume implicit consent. The choice is simple: either stop doing it, or ask for explicit consent. If you're seeing obnoxious "cookie banners", it's because the operators of those sites would rather mess up their UX with annoying crap, rather than entertain the idea of not being a creepy stalker. From a pragmatic point of view, making it easier (or even automatic!) for users to give up their rights, in a blanket way to anyone who asks them to, just so unscrupulous corporations don't have to experience negative repercussions of their user-hostile decisions, would seem to defeat the whole point of GDPR. If you don't want to see "cookie banners", ask the site operators to stop being creeps; that way, they wouldn't need to ask.