4 ms·

> 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

by 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. :-)

by yladiz 6y ago

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. :-)