4 ms·

They already are banned. What we need is enforcement of existing provisions.

by lmkg 6y ago

PaulHoule 6y ago
Where? I thought those cookie popups were "legislated" by the EU or at least that internet giants came to the conclusion that those popups were required. In reality they are a form of harassment, just like all the other pop-ups that assault computer users continuously. Somebody ought to spend a night in jail for every time you tick a box that says "don't notify me about this again?" that keeps coming back.
- lmkg 6y ago
  It's more complicated than "banned," but if you want the details, I can give them. In short, you can't use non-essential cookies unless you have consent. Companies want to use non-essential cookies, so they're trying to pressure users to consent by using things like pop-up banners. But the current definition of "consent" basically says that if you're pressuring users, then the consent isn't valid. It's perfectly fine to not have a banner and not track users. It's perfectly fine to have a non-blocking infobox at the bottom asking for consent. A big ol' blocking banner than mandates user action for non-essential tracking... I don't think it's actually illegal (although there's currently lawsuits ongoing about paywalls), but it doesn't achieve what it's trying to achieve, which is collecting user consent.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    I am indeed not sure whether a full-screen blocking modal would be illegal per-se, but the fact that this modal lacks a decline button as easy to use as the "I agree" one would be an obvious breach in my opinion. As it stands giving consent on that Google form is very easy and takes one click, but refusing takes a minute and navigating across several different settings pages.
    - PaulHoule 6y ago
      I think wasting any amount of screen space is an assault: on mobile you can easily wind up with 80% of screen area filled with mind-poisoning distractions. It's the new leaded gasoline.
    - g_p 6y ago
      Factors considered when evaluating legality of cookie prompts include size, but also down to the prominence of the options to accept and reject. Even the size and colour of the buttons has been ruled to be relevant in guidance from regulators. Most cookie prompts are currently invalid and illegal. It's very rare I find a valid one that fully complies with the various aspects of the regulations. It's also very common for sites to place cookies before they even get the consent, as the prompt isn't actually linked into any logic!

They already are banned. What we need is enforcement of existing provisions.

by lmkg 6y ago

They already are banned. What we need is enforcement of existing provisions.

Where? I thought those cookie popups were "legislated" by the EU or at least that internet giants came to the conclusion that those popups were required. In reality they are a form of harassment, just like all the other pop-ups that assault computer users continuously. Somebody ought to spend a night in jail for every time you tick a box that says "don't notify me about this again?" that keeps coming back.

lmkg 6y ago
It's more complicated than "banned," but if you want the details, I can give them. In short, you can't use non-essential cookies unless you have consent. Companies want to use non-essential cookies, so they're trying to pressure users to consent by using things like pop-up banners. But the current definition of "consent" basically says that if you're pressuring users, then the consent isn't valid. It's perfectly fine to not have a banner and not track users. It's perfectly fine to have a non-blocking infobox at the bottom asking for consent. A big ol' blocking banner than mandates user action for non-essential tracking... I don't think it's actually illegal (although there's currently lawsuits ongoing about paywalls), but it doesn't achieve what it's trying to achieve, which is collecting user consent.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I am indeed not sure whether a full-screen blocking modal would be illegal per-se, but the fact that this modal lacks a decline button as easy to use as the "I agree" one would be an obvious breach in my opinion. As it stands giving consent on that Google form is very easy and takes one click, but refusing takes a minute and navigating across several different settings pages.
  - PaulHoule 6y ago
    I think wasting any amount of screen space is an assault: on mobile you can easily wind up with 80% of screen area filled with mind-poisoning distractions. It's the new leaded gasoline.
  - g_p 6y ago
    Factors considered when evaluating legality of cookie prompts include size, but also down to the prominence of the options to accept and reject. Even the size and colour of the buttons has been ruled to be relevant in guidance from regulators. Most cookie prompts are currently invalid and illegal. It's very rare I find a valid one that fully complies with the various aspects of the regulations. It's also very common for sites to place cookies before they even get the consent, as the prompt isn't actually linked into any logic!