7 ms·

This is (mostly) based on EU law; entities that set cookies and track user data are required to get opt-in permission from users before doing so, and if the use

This is (mostly) based on EU law; entities that set cookies and track user data are required to get opt-in permission from users before doing so, and if the user declines, the entity cannot offer a degraded service. At least that's the idea. In practice, almost everyone just throws up a banner that says "fuck you, we're selling your data as hard and as fast as we can," with no opt-out available, but they pretend that this is compliant with the law.

kixiQu 6y ago
Yeah, I always wonder why this can't be handled like "prefers-dark-mode" and then the answer is always "because then who would let them do it"
- lez 6y ago
  What keeps back Mozilla to implement this setting and lobby for a general Web API for expressing cookie consent? As far as I can tell, their users would be extremely happy about that.
  - munchbunny 6y ago
    That existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track It failed horribly because it was voluntary. But now that it's a GDPR requirement, perhaps that might have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
    - dullgiulio 6y ago
      No, it failed because it acts on the wrong side. If you don't want to be tracked you shouldn't send cookies in your request.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    Because it won't take off. Right now, the advertisers are basically hoping for you to be too lazy to click around ten minutes to find the 'no'-option. If every user would be presented with a fairly weighted chance once, hardly anyone would click yes. Accepting this standard would undermine their business even more.
- kawsper 6y ago
  It can, first iteration used the Do-not-track header, but that died in the standardization process, now there are a movement for the Global Privacy Control header that you can read about here: https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ https://globalprivacycontrol.org/
mattmanser 6y ago
The new one I'm seening is you opt out easily enough, but there's a subtly hidden tab called 'legitimate interest' and every ad network claims to have a legitimate interest in harvesting your data, even though you've got no business relationship with them. What should be happening is every company that's done that should be getting massive fines, but instead all the enforcement agencies are doing nothing.
- tornato7 6y ago
  If a company is going to lie or skirt the law about their cookie use, why show the banner at all? It's almost worse to show a decline option that does nothing.
  - pdpi 6y ago
    It's basically a form of malicious compliance.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Malicious compliance is still compliance. Somebody being told "Please watch the pressure gauge." and then staring at it as it goes outside of safe regions is doing exactly what they were asked to do. This is blatant noncompliance with the thinnest veneer of respectability.
  - aenario 6y ago
    Then you can lobby to change the law because the users-electors are annoyed and it's not your company fault every website is doing it.
- jwr 6y ago
  Yeah, people should start reporting these sleazy sites to their authorities if in the EU. I'm hoping that GPDR enforcement will eventually get up to speed.
  - type0 6y ago
oneplane 6y ago
It's not really about cookies but more about non-essential information gathering, of which tracking is a part, and some forms of tracking use cookies. So basically, three levels deep before we go from the law to cookies. Then again, people have an easier time talking about 'cookie popups' instead of 'information harvesting', which sadly hides the real issue.
mumblemumble 6y ago
Would it be possible to set up a global cookie exchange? Some sort of browser plugin that lets us all swap tracking cookies? Sharing is caring.
OzzyB 6y ago
> the entity cannot offer a degraded service Does this mean that sites that offer free but ad-supported content still have to offer that content? So I can watch those free Youtube movies and listen to those Spotify tracks ad-free because EU Law says fuck you. How is this fair? Edit: Okay, okay, non-targeted (and no 3rd party) ads are okay, got it xD
- jmartinpetersen 6y ago
  How does no 3rd party tracking without consent mean "ad-free"?
- Macha 6y ago
  Spotify can show you non-targeted or contextually targeted ads, as is done with TV, radio, print media, movie theaters, billboards, etc. The fact that spotify doesn't want to because it's less profitable is where EU law says fuck you.
- zeta0134 6y ago
  Those ads will just have to be served without the tracking. You know, like how it has worked for decades on television and radio.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  You can display ads just fine without using cookies. You just can’t track people across the web. Also Spotify can easily require a free login and associate everything with that, no tracking cookies required. They just can’t associate your playlist with your web browsing habits.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  No, it just means those ad-supported sites cannot use cookies to spy on you in the name of personalized ads. They are still free to display "generic" ads including content-related ads. Same as old school TV, radio and print ads really, which couldn't track me either but sustained those broadcasting companies and publishers well enough.
- atoav 6y ago
MereInterest 6y ago
Once, and only once, since GDPR was implemented, I found a banner that was actually compliant with the GDPR. It defaults to allowing only necessary cookies, requires affirmative consent before any other cookies are used, and makes rejection of tracking have no additional steps compared to accepting tracking. Every other banner I have seen will violate those in some way, either saying that continued use of the site constitutes acceptance, or requiring unchecking of several boxes before clicking accept, or requiring going to dozens of affiliate websites in order to search out and disable tracking settings there. As in, this is the first GDPR banner I've seen that is actually legal under the GDPR. https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/
Justsignedup 6y ago
they sort of opt in. its pretty ingenious really. 1-click to opt-in. multi-click and losing your current page to opt-out.
Animats 6y ago
My favorite of the week: Doordash. Doordash does not use two-factor authentication, except for one thing: opting out of having your data sold. For that, it sends an SMS message to your phone. Since I signed up for them using a landline, the SMS message is lost.
- drzaiusapelord 6y ago
  Its a shame the EU became laser focused on cookies, which can be managed technically by browser settings, and not on dark patterns like these. Or how US consumers complain about being able to subscribe to a service via the web but must call a customer service person to cancel, often with a lengthy wait, dropped calls, and being transferred to a sometimes rude 'retention specialist.' There's so much more pressing than just cookies imo.
  - simongray 6y ago
    Contrary to popular belief, GDPR has nothing to do with cookies and isn't even about the web specifically. It is - as it says right in the name - a General Data Protection Regulation. The very long and well-sourced wikipedia article doesn't even contain the word "cookie": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
  - mustardo 6y ago
    Oh man this makes my blood boil, another reason ill never thouch MS again is they they removed the cancel xbox live subscription button for NZ subscribers and I assume other locales where they didnt have some law forbidding it, the feature to cancel was there but they decided if they could to hold you hostage and made you call and waste lots of time via as painfull process as possible to cancel
  - jeanjogr 6y ago
    > 3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. This if from article 7 of the GDPR [0]. Clearly the situation described involves a much harder time withdrawing consent than giving it - which goes against the law. I may have misunderstood what you meant but how is this being laser focused on cookies? This articles applies beyond the Internet anyway. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2001-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
sharken 6y ago
Sad but true, i wish there was some way to change the current state of affairs, but EU is a juggernaut that has lost track of its citizens wishes regarding cookies. One of the most precious things we have is time and the constant cookie interruptions are a nuisance that should be kept from sight.

kixiQu 6y ago

Yeah, I always wonder why this can't be handled like "prefers-dark-mode" and then the answer is always "because then who would let them do it"

lez 6y ago
What keeps back Mozilla to implement this setting and lobby for a general Web API for expressing cookie consent? As far as I can tell, their users would be extremely happy about that.
- munchbunny 6y ago
  That existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track It failed horribly because it was voluntary. But now that it's a GDPR requirement, perhaps that might have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
  - dullgiulio 6y ago
    No, it failed because it acts on the wrong side. If you don't want to be tracked you shouldn't send cookies in your request.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  Because it won't take off. Right now, the advertisers are basically hoping for you to be too lazy to click around ten minutes to find the 'no'-option. If every user would be presented with a fairly weighted chance once, hardly anyone would click yes. Accepting this standard would undermine their business even more.
kawsper 6y ago
It can, first iteration used the Do-not-track header, but that died in the standardization process, now there are a movement for the Global Privacy Control header that you can read about here: https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ https://globalprivacycontrol.org/

mattmanser 6y ago

The new one I'm seening is you opt out easily enough, but there's a subtly hidden tab called 'legitimate interest' and every ad network claims to have a legitimate interest in harvesting your data, even though you've got no business relationship with them. What should be happening is every company that's done that should be getting massive fines, but instead all the enforcement agencies are doing nothing.

tornato7 6y ago
If a company is going to lie or skirt the law about their cookie use, why show the banner at all? It's almost worse to show a decline option that does nothing.
- pdpi 6y ago
  It's basically a form of malicious compliance.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    Malicious compliance is still compliance. Somebody being told "Please watch the pressure gauge." and then staring at it as it goes outside of safe regions is doing exactly what they were asked to do. This is blatant noncompliance with the thinnest veneer of respectability.
- aenario 6y ago
  Then you can lobby to change the law because the users-electors are annoyed and it's not your company fault every website is doing it.
jwr 6y ago
Yeah, people should start reporting these sleazy sites to their authorities if in the EU. I'm hoping that GPDR enforcement will eventually get up to speed.
- type0 6y ago

oneplane 6y ago

It's not really about cookies but more about non-essential information gathering, of which tracking is a part, and some forms of tracking use cookies. So basically, three levels deep before we go from the law to cookies. Then again, people have an easier time talking about 'cookie popups' instead of 'information harvesting', which sadly hides the real issue.

mumblemumble 6y ago

Would it be possible to set up a global cookie exchange? Some sort of browser plugin that lets us all swap tracking cookies? Sharing is caring.

OzzyB 6y ago

> the entity cannot offer a degraded service Does this mean that sites that offer free but ad-supported content still have to offer that content? So I can watch those free Youtube movies and listen to those Spotify tracks ad-free because EU Law says fuck you. How is this fair? Edit: Okay, okay, non-targeted (and no 3rd party) ads are okay, got it xD

jmartinpetersen 6y ago
How does no 3rd party tracking without consent mean "ad-free"?
Macha 6y ago
Spotify can show you non-targeted or contextually targeted ads, as is done with TV, radio, print media, movie theaters, billboards, etc. The fact that spotify doesn't want to because it's less profitable is where EU law says fuck you.
zeta0134 6y ago
Those ads will just have to be served without the tracking. You know, like how it has worked for decades on television and radio.
tinus_hn 6y ago
You can display ads just fine without using cookies. You just can’t track people across the web. Also Spotify can easily require a free login and associate everything with that, no tracking cookies required. They just can’t associate your playlist with your web browsing habits.
rndgermandude 6y ago
No, it just means those ad-supported sites cannot use cookies to spy on you in the name of personalized ads. They are still free to display "generic" ads including content-related ads. Same as old school TV, radio and print ads really, which couldn't track me either but sustained those broadcasting companies and publishers well enough.
atoav 6y ago

MereInterest 6y ago

Once, and only once, since GDPR was implemented, I found a banner that was actually compliant with the GDPR. It defaults to allowing only necessary cookies, requires affirmative consent before any other cookies are used, and makes rejection of tracking have no additional steps compared to accepting tracking. Every other banner I have seen will violate those in some way, either saying that continued use of the site constitutes acceptance, or requiring unchecking of several boxes before clicking accept, or requiring going to dozens of affiliate websites in order to search out and disable tracking settings there. As in, this is the first GDPR banner I've seen that is actually legal under the GDPR. https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/

Justsignedup 6y ago

they sort of opt in. its pretty ingenious really. 1-click to opt-in. multi-click and losing your current page to opt-out.

Animats 6y ago

My favorite of the week: Doordash. Doordash does not use two-factor authentication, except for one thing: opting out of having your data sold. For that, it sends an SMS message to your phone. Since I signed up for them using a landline, the SMS message is lost.

drzaiusapelord 6y ago
Its a shame the EU became laser focused on cookies, which can be managed technically by browser settings, and not on dark patterns like these. Or how US consumers complain about being able to subscribe to a service via the web but must call a customer service person to cancel, often with a lengthy wait, dropped calls, and being transferred to a sometimes rude 'retention specialist.' There's so much more pressing than just cookies imo.
- simongray 6y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, GDPR has nothing to do with cookies and isn't even about the web specifically. It is - as it says right in the name - a General Data Protection Regulation. The very long and well-sourced wikipedia article doesn't even contain the word "cookie": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
- mustardo 6y ago
  Oh man this makes my blood boil, another reason ill never thouch MS again is they they removed the cancel xbox live subscription button for NZ subscribers and I assume other locales where they didnt have some law forbidding it, the feature to cancel was there but they decided if they could to hold you hostage and made you call and waste lots of time via as painfull process as possible to cancel
- jeanjogr 6y ago
  > 3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. This if from article 7 of the GDPR [0]. Clearly the situation described involves a much harder time withdrawing consent than giving it - which goes against the law. I may have misunderstood what you meant but how is this being laser focused on cookies? This articles applies beyond the Internet anyway. [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2001-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

sharken 6y ago

Sad but true, i wish there was some way to change the current state of affairs, but EU is a juggernaut that has lost track of its citizens wishes regarding cookies. One of the most precious things we have is time and the constant cookie interruptions are a nuisance that should be kept from sight.