4 ms·

I think they will go away over time. [RANT] They should never have been implemented that way IMHO -- a different API or IETF-ish agreed HTML meta tag that woul

I think they will go away over time. [RANT] They should never have been implemented that way IMHO -- a different API or IETF-ish agreed HTML meta tag that would inform the browser of the scope, entities etc. would have allowed the browser to offer overall policy choices to the user. Most would be "I don't care, do whatever you want to me" but those who do care could have been picky. That would also have allowed the browser to generate reports for the user regarding which sites currently have which permissions, etc. This would have put the onus on the browser implementation to get it right, and not e.g. fail to show the messages, but one could argue that any browser could get the random CSS used for these prompts wrong and not show the message. I'm a GDPR fan and will likely use this jurisdiction transfer as a ceremonial point to close my FB account for good.

mjgs 6y ago
I’ve been wondering about whether it should be something implemented in the browser too. Instinctively I feel that better browser tools would be beneficial, but it’s an odd problem that we are trying to solve. I am not even sure we understand the root issue. Some companies want to use the web to try to change users behaviour, and many users want those companies to change their behaviour. That’s not a solvable problem, it’s a circular reference bug. So maybe better tools might actually make it worse, in a race to the bottom sort of situation. My main concern is that the consent forms, however well meaning they might be, are creating a horrible environment. There are lots of perverse incentives for people to ruin the web experience. Some players stand to gain a lot from a horrible web environment. For example ones that have competing information products. I’m increasingly thinking it would be better to just not have consent forms, and with better browser tools, people would hopefully go to websites that treated them well.
- jnxx 6y ago
  > Some companies want to use the web to try to change users behaviour And just by looking at Google, they are doing that in an increasingly aggressive way.
  - mjgs 6y ago
    Can you be more specific?
kuschku 6y ago
> [RANT] They should never have been implemented that way IMHO -- a different API or IETF-ish agreed HTML meta tag that would inform the browser of the scope, entities etc. would have allowed the browser to offer overall policy choices to the user. That would not have been used. The whole reason why all the consent forms are constantly violating the GDPR is because companies want to make it as hard as possible to say no. They'd only accept the browser API if the "No to all" button (which by law has to be default, has to be the option chosen if you click anything except yes, and has to be easier to use than "Yes to all") was hidden behind 3 layers of "are you sure", each of which having a 30 second timer before you could continue. That's the whole reason this consent form disaster exists: because companies are trying to do everything they can go get around the laws. Just look at the Do Not Track header: it's a legally meaningful statement that companies should follow. They don't.
thu2111 6y ago
Of course not, the entire concept of the cookie warning is a stupidity only the EU could have dreamed up. Browsers already allow you to control cookies, extensions can manage them and create popups if you want them, and in fact very old browsers had a "confirm all cookies" feature in them. Nobody used that old feature because cookies became so prevalent nobody wanted to be informed anymore, so those features got taken out, but it was technically very easy to do. The EU basically looked at that situation with a competitive browser market, extensions, the existence of the same feature in the past and said, "screw all that, the Commission knows best". Which is exactly the attitude that drove people to vote leave in the first place.

mjgs 6y ago

I’ve been wondering about whether it should be something implemented in the browser too. Instinctively I feel that better browser tools would be beneficial, but it’s an odd problem that we are trying to solve. I am not even sure we understand the root issue. Some companies want to use the web to try to change users behaviour, and many users want those companies to change their behaviour. That’s not a solvable problem, it’s a circular reference bug. So maybe better tools might actually make it worse, in a race to the bottom sort of situation. My main concern is that the consent forms, however well meaning they might be, are creating a horrible environment. There are lots of perverse incentives for people to ruin the web experience. Some players stand to gain a lot from a horrible web environment. For example ones that have competing information products. I’m increasingly thinking it would be better to just not have consent forms, and with better browser tools, people would hopefully go to websites that treated them well.

jnxx 6y ago
> Some companies want to use the web to try to change users behaviour And just by looking at Google, they are doing that in an increasingly aggressive way.
- mjgs 6y ago
  Can you be more specific?

kuschku 6y ago

> [RANT] They should never have been implemented that way IMHO -- a different API or IETF-ish agreed HTML meta tag that would inform the browser of the scope, entities etc. would have allowed the browser to offer overall policy choices to the user. That would not have been used. The whole reason why all the consent forms are constantly violating the GDPR is because companies want to make it as hard as possible to say no. They'd only accept the browser API if the "No to all" button (which by law has to be default, has to be the option chosen if you click anything except yes, and has to be easier to use than "Yes to all") was hidden behind 3 layers of "are you sure", each of which having a 30 second timer before you could continue. That's the whole reason this consent form disaster exists: because companies are trying to do everything they can go get around the laws. Just look at the Do Not Track header: it's a legally meaningful statement that companies should follow. They don't.

thu2111 6y ago

Of course not, the entire concept of the cookie warning is a stupidity only the EU could have dreamed up. Browsers already allow you to control cookies, extensions can manage them and create popups if you want them, and in fact very old browsers had a "confirm all cookies" feature in them. Nobody used that old feature because cookies became so prevalent nobody wanted to be informed anymore, so those features got taken out, but it was technically very easy to do. The EU basically looked at that situation with a competitive browser market, extensions, the existence of the same feature in the past and said, "screw all that, the Commission knows best". Which is exactly the attitude that drove people to vote leave in the first place.