3 ms·

I think there's some merit to "this site uses cookies to track you as you visit different sites". There's none whatsoever to "this site uses cookies to remember

by lkbm 6y ago

I think there's some merit to "this site uses cookies to track you as you visit different sites". There's none whatsoever to "this site uses cookies to remember your login information". The law seems to make no distinction. As a user, I view every cookie notice as pointless and annoying -- obviously you use cookies, and obviously I'm okay with it. If the notice were specifically about cross-site tracking, that would be a meaningful notice, and opting out would make sense. Session cookies, though? You're warning me about session cookies? If I could set a blanket "I accept cookies" in my browser settings and have those notices all go away,. I would in a heartbeat. And, in fact, I DO have a blanket "I accept cookies" setting in my browser. Sadly, I'm still forced to manually opt-in on each stupid website. Ideally, we would distinguish between different "types" of cookies (and I believe the law requires you do this), and we would have settings specifically for these in browsers (which we sort of do in a limited fashion), and we would simply make it a setting defaulted to "ask". show notice only if the user has manually changed the setting from "ask" to "accept" for the types of cookies used on a site. Boom, useful and non-annoying cookie notices. Until we do that, it's a bad system, and a useless law.

yladiz 6y ago
> The law seems to make no distinction. What do you mean by this? The law does make a distinction between essential and nonessential cookies (cookies that are necessary for the function of the website/app, i.e. session cookies, and not necessary, i.e. analytics IDs) and requires you to get consent for nonessential cookies, while allowing essential cookies. If a website doesn't set any nonessential cookies then it doesn't need to ask for consent.
- lkbm 6y ago
  Good point. I'm certainly not an expert on the law -- I did some quick googling, but not a lot. Session cookies, e.g. are fine. As best I can tell, "remember me" / "remember my email" checkboxes still do require a banner, though I'm not sure. Preference cookies in general seem to. That strikes me as silly. Facebook's tracking me on thousands of unrelated websites; Wikipedia is remembering that I X'd out the donation banner last week and don't want to be shown it again[0]. These are entirely different use-cases with entirely different privacy implications. As far as I can tell, both require a banner, and while the banner allegedly has (or links to) details about which is occurring, I've never, ever paid enough attention to those banners to see those details. Part of this mess may be due to the fact that our client software is dominated by the largest advertiser, but I'd prefer regulations that address that by demanding privacy-respecting settings and setting defaults, not by showing me banners that I've never found useful. I use uBlock Origin and Firefox' tracking protection. I don't use the consent banners. I think most people automatically click "yes" on those, yet given the option to block tracking cookies en masse, would enable that option. [0] Okay, seems as if Wikipedia ISN'T storing that info, but I wish they did.
  - ajnin 6y ago
    The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.
    - lkbm 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. You may be right -- again, I'm far from an expert. The distinction I've seen is essential vs. nonessential. Remembering that I dismissed that banner seems more like non-essential to me. Seems more along the lines of saving my preferred font size. That said, the sources I'm finding about this are maaaybe not the most reliable. Is there a difference between remembering this "for the current session" vs. "for several weeks"? (The idea of a session is awfully vague given how HTTP works, but seems like one we use anyway.) > I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless. One thing I can add is that when I searched for info about the law, I got a bunch of results from cookieyes.com, which told me 1. that I need a cookie banner for any cookies at all and 2. we'll provide you with a cookie banner if you pay us. So there's definitely some incentives to push unnecessary cookie banners going on. :-)
trickstra 6y ago
Those notices also often say "This site uses cookies to make your experience better", so yes, in this sense it's useless. But that's not all the law is doing. Many websites from US simply stopped serving anything for European IP addresses, responding just with error 451, which I always take as a sign that this site wants to sell my data more than they want to show me ads, so I'm glad I didn't accidentally visit it.
- kmlx 6y ago
  it’s actually a sign of a fragmented internet, and brings into question the very idea of an open and free internet. but alas, if this is what politicians want, this is what we’re getting.
  - wlll 6y ago
    It's not a free Internet if there's a hidden price the visitor has to pay, which is being tracked and monitored wherever they go.
    - kmlx 6y ago
      0. the price is close to zero. that’s why most people don’t care about it. 1. it’s not hidden. open dev tools, see what the page does. 2. someone has got to pay. either a subscription or with your data, the salaries need paying once per month.
      - wlll 6y ago
        0. But I do, and I make my choice when presented with one. 1. That's still hidden. "read the code" has never been an acceptable answer to how to inform users, and wouldn't even get close to being allowed under the current GDPR or ePrivacy directives. 2. If you want me to pay then you have to tell me how much I have to pay. It's why there are laws on the clear display of prices in restaurants, and that bars in the UK have to have the prices of drinks listed. If you want me to pay the price to enter your wensite then tell me what that is and let me make he choice. Over the last 20 years or so companies have been playing fast and loose with people's data, they could have not done that, but the continued, and now this is what they have to deal with. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest bit

by lkbm 6y ago

yladiz 6y ago

> The law seems to make no distinction. What do you mean by this? The law does make a distinction between essential and nonessential cookies (cookies that are necessary for the function of the website/app, i.e. session cookies, and not necessary, i.e. analytics IDs) and requires you to get consent for nonessential cookies, while allowing essential cookies. If a website doesn't set any nonessential cookies then it doesn't need to ask for consent.

lkbm 6y ago
Good point. I'm certainly not an expert on the law -- I did some quick googling, but not a lot. Session cookies, e.g. are fine. As best I can tell, "remember me" / "remember my email" checkboxes still do require a banner, though I'm not sure. Preference cookies in general seem to. That strikes me as silly. Facebook's tracking me on thousands of unrelated websites; Wikipedia is remembering that I X'd out the donation banner last week and don't want to be shown it again[0]. These are entirely different use-cases with entirely different privacy implications. As far as I can tell, both require a banner, and while the banner allegedly has (or links to) details about which is occurring, I've never, ever paid enough attention to those banners to see those details. Part of this mess may be due to the fact that our client software is dominated by the largest advertiser, but I'd prefer regulations that address that by demanding privacy-respecting settings and setting defaults, not by showing me banners that I've never found useful. I use uBlock Origin and Firefox' tracking protection. I don't use the consent banners. I think most people automatically click "yes" on those, yet given the option to block tracking cookies en masse, would enable that option. [0] Okay, seems as if Wikipedia ISN'T storing that info, but I wish they did.
- ajnin 6y ago
  The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.
  - lkbm 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. You may be right -- again, I'm far from an expert. The distinction I've seen is essential vs. nonessential. Remembering that I dismissed that banner seems more like non-essential to me. Seems more along the lines of saving my preferred font size. That said, the sources I'm finding about this are maaaybe not the most reliable. Is there a difference between remembering this "for the current session" vs. "for several weeks"? (The idea of a session is awfully vague given how HTTP works, but seems like one we use anyway.) > I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless. One thing I can add is that when I searched for info about the law, I got a bunch of results from cookieyes.com, which told me 1. that I need a cookie banner for any cookies at all and 2. we'll provide you with a cookie banner if you pay us. So there's definitely some incentives to push unnecessary cookie banners going on. :-)

trickstra 6y ago

Those notices also often say "This site uses cookies to make your experience better", so yes, in this sense it's useless. But that's not all the law is doing. Many websites from US simply stopped serving anything for European IP addresses, responding just with error 451, which I always take as a sign that this site wants to sell my data more than they want to show me ads, so I'm glad I didn't accidentally visit it.

kmlx 6y ago
it’s actually a sign of a fragmented internet, and brings into question the very idea of an open and free internet. but alas, if this is what politicians want, this is what we’re getting.
- wlll 6y ago
  It's not a free Internet if there's a hidden price the visitor has to pay, which is being tracked and monitored wherever they go.
  - kmlx 6y ago
    0. the price is close to zero. that’s why most people don’t care about it. 1. it’s not hidden. open dev tools, see what the page does. 2. someone has got to pay. either a subscription or with your data, the salaries need paying once per month.
    - wlll 6y ago
      0. But I do, and I make my choice when presented with one. 1. That's still hidden. "read the code" has never been an acceptable answer to how to inform users, and wouldn't even get close to being allowed under the current GDPR or ePrivacy directives. 2. If you want me to pay then you have to tell me how much I have to pay. It's why there are laws on the clear display of prices in restaurants, and that bars in the UK have to have the prices of drinks listed. If you want me to pay the price to enter your wensite then tell me what that is and let me make he choice. Over the last 20 years or so companies have been playing fast and loose with people's data, they could have not done that, but the continued, and now this is what they have to deal with. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest bit