7 ms·

Is there any work being done to revert the requirements of cookie banners, age consent, etc? These are all utterly pointless and easy to bypass. While we're at

Is there any work being done to revert the requirements of cookie banners, age consent, etc? These are all utterly pointless and easy to bypass. While we're at it, get rid of the forced "piracy is harmful" ads on every media disc too. Pirates don't actually see these messages, they're stripped out in the final copy, so the actual legal customers are the only one suffering through it as they can't be skipped either with the skip button, which is silly. We need to do a better job of cleaning up our laws that has turned out to be worthless.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_jstreet 6y ago
I wonder that too. Would this be something the W3C would look into introducing some configurable cookie-consent (i.e. "Accept all", "necessary only", "block all" options) that browser vendors could then pick-up on and adopt so that it wouldn't require manual checks at each website visit?
- detaro 6y ago
  Something like the Do-Not-Track header? The history of that pretty much shows how much adoption to expect for a feature like this, sadly.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  As the DNT header history shows, the only solution is privacy laws
ryukafalz 6y ago
I think the cookie banner requirements are just fine: they're only required if sites are tracking you. It's a good sign that if I'm on a site that's not bothering me with a cookie banner, it's respecting my privacy: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ Making the widespread surveillance that was previously invisible visible (and annoying) seems like a good move to me.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  But virtually every site I visit is tracking me. It doesn't change the fact that they're tracking me, it just makes me click an "X" or "OK" every damned time I visit some new site to read an article or something. I could understand your argument if sites were actually removing tracking in order not to annoy users with the popup. But sites aren't doing that, not in any meaningful number at all. So it's not having any effect on privacy, while annoying basically every internet user ever constantly (before you hunt for an extension to block as many of them as you can). So I don't see how it's a good move at all, not in practice. It's just annoying, and that's it.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    Before cookie banners were required, do you think the average user would have any idea how many sites were tracking them? I don't think they did. It's beneficial if only to increase public awareness, because tracking is otherwise invisible. Heck, I'm a reasonably technical user, and I wouldn't have noticed in most cases. Again, invisible. Now I have a negative first impression of a site if it annoys me with cookie banners, and a more positive one if not.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      And what difference does it make if we now know we are being tracked?
    - kstrauser 6y ago
      Except now it feels like a California Prop 65 warning that you see on literally every business. “Something in here may cause cancer. Is it a bottle of toilet cleaner locked in the supply closet? Is it benzene in the hummus? Who knows!”
- asiando 6y ago
  They’re ok but they should be more precise: 1. Require websites to be concise and offer a yes/no ONLY. 2. Reverse-lobby browser vendors to turn this into an API. 3. Require everyone to use the API. Now users can block or accept all requests at once like they can block or accept Notification requests.
Nextgrid 6y ago
Cookie banners aren't required per-se, and when the website wishes to do tracking that would require consent under the GDPR, the regulation mandates that the consent prompt should be clear, opt-in (aka pre-ticked checkboxes aren't allowed) and that accepting should be as easy as declining (so if opting in takes one click, so should opt-out). The problem is that the GDPR is not being enforced seriously so these breaches of the regulation aren't being cleaned up. I'm not sure if it's malice or outright stupidity and the companies legitimately believe they are compliant (there is tons of bad and incorrect advice out there). If you want things to change and you're in Europe, you should start by questioning the incompetence of your local data protection agency as they are the ones that have the power to investigate breaches & impose fines. In the UK, the Open Rights Group is raising money to sue our data protection agency for its incompetence/unwillingness to enforce the regulation, so maybe it's worth checking out: https://action.openrightsgroup.org/help-us-protect-your-data-illegal-ads https://action.openrightsgroup.org/help-us-protect-your-data... (no affiliation)
rozab 6y ago
Do Not Track should have been made legally binding. Hell, with any sane interpretation of GDPR it would be.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

_jstreet 6y ago

I wonder that too. Would this be something the W3C would look into introducing some configurable cookie-consent (i.e. "Accept all", "necessary only", "block all" options) that browser vendors could then pick-up on and adopt so that it wouldn't require manual checks at each website visit?

detaro 6y ago
Something like the Do-Not-Track header? The history of that pretty much shows how much adoption to expect for a feature like this, sadly.
colejohnson66 6y ago
As the DNT header history shows, the only solution is privacy laws

ryukafalz 6y ago

I think the cookie banner requirements are just fine: they're only required if sites are tracking you. It's a good sign that if I'm on a site that's not bothering me with a cookie banner, it's respecting my privacy: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ Making the widespread surveillance that was previously invisible visible (and annoying) seems like a good move to me.

crazygringo 6y ago
But virtually every site I visit is tracking me. It doesn't change the fact that they're tracking me, it just makes me click an "X" or "OK" every damned time I visit some new site to read an article or something. I could understand your argument if sites were actually removing tracking in order not to annoy users with the popup. But sites aren't doing that, not in any meaningful number at all. So it's not having any effect on privacy, while annoying basically every internet user ever constantly (before you hunt for an extension to block as many of them as you can). So I don't see how it's a good move at all, not in practice. It's just annoying, and that's it.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  Before cookie banners were required, do you think the average user would have any idea how many sites were tracking them? I don't think they did. It's beneficial if only to increase public awareness, because tracking is otherwise invisible. Heck, I'm a reasonably technical user, and I wouldn't have noticed in most cases. Again, invisible. Now I have a negative first impression of a site if it annoys me with cookie banners, and a more positive one if not.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    And what difference does it make if we now know we are being tracked?
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    Except now it feels like a California Prop 65 warning that you see on literally every business. “Something in here may cause cancer. Is it a bottle of toilet cleaner locked in the supply closet? Is it benzene in the hummus? Who knows!”
asiando 6y ago
They’re ok but they should be more precise: 1. Require websites to be concise and offer a yes/no ONLY. 2. Reverse-lobby browser vendors to turn this into an API. 3. Require everyone to use the API. Now users can block or accept all requests at once like they can block or accept Notification requests.

Nextgrid 6y ago

Cookie banners aren't required per-se, and when the website wishes to do tracking that would require consent under the GDPR, the regulation mandates that the consent prompt should be clear, opt-in (aka pre-ticked checkboxes aren't allowed) and that accepting should be as easy as declining (so if opting in takes one click, so should opt-out). The problem is that the GDPR is not being enforced seriously so these breaches of the regulation aren't being cleaned up. I'm not sure if it's malice or outright stupidity and the companies legitimately believe they are compliant (there is tons of bad and incorrect advice out there). If you want things to change and you're in Europe, you should start by questioning the incompetence of your local data protection agency as they are the ones that have the power to investigate breaches & impose fines. In the UK, the Open Rights Group is raising money to sue our data protection agency for its incompetence/unwillingness to enforce the regulation, so maybe it's worth checking out: https://action.openrightsgroup.org/help-us-protect-your-data-illegal-ads https://action.openrightsgroup.org/help-us-protect-your-data... (no affiliation)

rozab 6y ago

Do Not Track should have been made legally binding. Hell, with any sane interpretation of GDPR it would be.