7 ms·

Europe’s cookie consent reckoning is coming

45 points by Liriel 5y ago

underyx 5y ago
For a comedic experience, open this article with your ad blocker turned off.
Bancakes 5y ago
Real article link: https://outline.com/qtxEx3 https://outline.com/qtxEx3 The blurred webpage is a lie - just a jpeg. Plus, it's a yahoo consent domain. Very ironic.
WA 5y ago
Sounds good. Target https://www.consentmanager.net/ https://www.consentmanager.net/ and similar services and it'll trickle down to a lot of websites.
kkz 5y ago
And they employ exactly the same tactics they describe. TC is such a pile of gunk.
- ginko 5y ago
  Eh, they used to be a lot worse. Nowadays it's just 2-3 clicks to reject all tracking on TC. Could be better but I'll take it. Same with Google and Facebook. It looks like they're starting to get in line.
cluoma 5y ago
An article dissing cookie popups has a cookie popup with no easy opt out. Amazing.
- hannob 5y ago
  It's easy to make that take. But try to see the story from the other side. The person writing that article is a journalist who almost certainly has no direct connection to the ad department of his site and the people who are responsible for the cookie banner. (I sympathize, because I'm a journalist with no direct connection to any of those things.) It's an unfortunate reality that most media orgs use shitty ad tech. There's also an alignment of incentives that makes it hard for media orgs to do anything else. For a journalist there's few options how to handle this: 1. Still write about these things and be called hypocritical. 2. Don't write about these things and avoid being called hypocritical. 3. Write about these things on sites without cookies and shitty ads (e.g. a private, simple blog) and don't get payed. I don't think 2 is particularly preferrable and it should be understandable that 3 is not particularly attractive.
  - csunbird 5y ago
    The article also just a re-write of the original article, and contains no original content.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
Besides an automated system, I'm wondering if we could benefit from some sort of reporting tool to report sites abusing this UX, with hall of shame and if possible make it easy for the enforcers to know what to focus on. So folks can report a site if a) it has poor UX to reject all b) despite rejecting all it still uses cookies invalidly. Seems like something like that would already exist?
50kIters 5y ago
Ironic that the cookie-wall on this site commits offence #1 as outlined in the article.
jwr 5y ago
So happy to see that happening. Companies are making a mockery of the laws with the tracking "consent" mazes, auto-enabled "legitimate interest" boxes, etc. I am also amazed how it's possible to track customers across devices forever, but it seemingly isn't possible to remember my refusal and it is necessary to ask me again very often. I really hope this reckoning is going to move forward.
dukoid 5y ago
Ideally there would be a standardized opt-out button with a recognizable icon in a banner of limited size at the top
- esarbe 5y ago
  Maybe even integrate that in the browser's privacy overview?
  - mr_mitm 5y ago
    Yes, they could use an HTTP header for that. We could call it "Do Not Track".
    - esarbe 5y ago
      That was funny. :D
  - rwmj 5y ago
    Exactly, my browser simply rejects all third-party cookies (except from a whitelist) and has a short time limit on the others. No need at all for consent buttons.
csunbird 5y ago
This is already covered in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27340769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27340769 which also links to original article. Save a click away from techcrunch, as its ironic that they are also not compliant.
Barrin92 5y ago
Should have happened a long time ago. Hit everyone who resorts to these pathetic dark patterns with a company-ending fine. If all the buzzfeed and gawker clones pull out of the market, even better. Two birds with one stone.
ivoras 5y ago
I was and still am totally amazed that people still think it's a good idea to require each individual site owner to comply with that kind of policy instead of letting the browser vendors do the hard work. Which is easier - to modify and monitor billions of different sites, or to create a framework and obligations on the side of browsers to handle it? Something like requiring all browsers to start with cookies disabled, and mandating exactly how those users who do consent to tracking can be tracked (up to minute technical details), would do wonders if the goal is to actually improve privacy instead of just making it easy for Google and Facebook to continue doing what they do, while making life harder for millions of small companies and increasing bureucratic load while doing it.
- DelightOne 5y ago
  I still haven't figured out how to opt out after initially opting in. Having a standard place in the browser would make this simple.
  - dvdkhlng 5y ago
    I think, in case you delete all your cookies, you will get a new cookie popup the next time you visit a web-site. As I usually configure browsers to not keep cookies between browser-restarts, I'm quite used to being asked anew about cookie consent every single time I visit a page :/
- jdjgktntnrk 5y ago
  Maybe we could send a header to websites letting them know that the user wants to opt out of all non-essential cookies. We could call it DoNotTrack, or something along those lines. I think HN would love the idea.
  - sharken 5y ago
    It's unclear if Do Not Track will be useful for cookie consent, certainly it will take a lot of time. Here is an article from 2018 about it. https://www.w3.org/blog/2018/06/do-not-track-and-the-gdpr/ https://www.w3.org/blog/2018/06/do-not-track-and-the-gdpr/ I think the intent of the GDPR is good, but we now have websites that are harder to use than they have to be. In addition to that companies all over Europe have to spend a lot of time to be GDPR compliant. I think it's time to take a good look at GDPR and evaluate if it's doing what is was meant to do.
iconara 5y ago
> The problem is that most websites simply aren’t compliant. They choose to make a mockery of the law by offering a skewed choice: Typically a super simple opt-in (to hand them all your data) vs a highly confusing, frustrating, tedious opt-out (and sometimes even no reject option at all). Like the Techcrunch site where this was published.
- artjomb 5y ago
  And it's not possible to change/withdraw consent after allowing it. I've searched 5 minutes and found no link or widget that would get me to that screen.
- croo 5y ago
  I know right?! I went there and met by a giant wall of GDPR bullshit without a button to say "no", buttons grayed out but clickable, multiple page scroll down to reach the desired opt out, default everything off on the first page, but default as you went further... prime example all the way. At one point in the process I got worried that the GDPR popup is itself whats posted and not an article.
woodpanel 5y ago
The Gist: A non-profit developed a cralwer which can pick up misleading (or non-working) cookie-consent banners. > with a plan to file up to 10,000 complaints against offenders over the course of this year > Today it’s announcing the first batch of 560 complaints, large and small > noyb is even giving offenders a warning first — and a full month to clean up their ways In general I'm not a fan of vigilante law enforcers, specifically if they attach an invoice to their warnings. I hope noyb won't and that the small in large and small doesn't mean people will loose their jobs. If that's the case then god-speed. If not I fear a lot of warned sites are going to be run by barely profitable family-run businesses, who barely managed to have a consent-banner at all and whose sites are barely visted anyways (thus causing next to little harm).
- Majestic121 5y ago
  It's pretty easy for family run business to respect the law : don't track your customers. No need for any banner if you only use cookies for legitimate interest.
- hnaccount_rng 5y ago
  They won't. > Anders als bei "Abmahnungen" die gerade in Deutschland problematische Ausmaße angenommen haben, fallen für die betroffenen Unternehmen dabei keinerlei Kosten an, da das Projekt durch Spenden der rund 4.000 Fördermitglieder von noyb finanziert wird. https://noyb.eu/de/noyb-setzt-dem-cookie-banner-wahnsinn-ein-ende https://noyb.eu/de/noyb-setzt-dem-cookie-banner-wahnsinn-ein...
  - thargor 5y ago
    Simplified Translation: they don't charge the corporations anything. Noyb is financed by donations.
- thargor 5y ago
  noyb are not "vigilante law enforcers". Law enforcement is police and courts. Noyb notifies corporations of their GDPR violations. Only if they do not comply they will notify authorities/sue.
l33tman 5y ago
You can't even click on the techcrunch link if you have uMatrix, it's blocked due to their redirect tracking. TC (and some other notable sites, I think engadget and others) employs a tracking-by-redirect scheme through https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers which is a well-known tracker that has been discussed here and on many reddit threads it seems...
pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
> TechCrunch is part of Verizon Media. > > By clicking "Accept all" you agree that Verizon Media and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies and process your personal data, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. The irony.
shp0ngle 5y ago
This is TechCrunch cookie consent. https://i.imgur.com/laO6kiw.png https://i.imgur.com/laO6kiw.png
- jdjgktntnrk 5y ago
  Before viewing that image I had to accept the Imgur cookie consent :) It's cookie consents all the way down...
  - shp0ngle 5y ago
    oh no, sorry
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  The worst is the "Legitimate interest" when clicking manage options. Apparently 235 companies have a "legitimate interest" in tracking me which is on by default unless I click "Reject All". https://imgur.com/a/QKzW9pc https://imgur.com/a/QKzW9pc
Elrac 5y ago
My biggest problem with Europe's mandatory cookie warning is that the solution is worse than the problem. I'm aware that once I enter somebody's site there's a gazillion ways for that somebody to get data about me. If cookies are blocked they'll find another way. But thanks to Europe's feeling they need to nanny me, I get those obnoxious cookie warning popups on every site I visit. Worse, I can't opt out of the popups. Infuriatingly, Europe didn't ask me if I _want_ to be protected like this. Of the many problems with the Internet and Web sites, I feel Europe has fixed the most trivial, in the most obnoxious possible way. Thanks for nothing, Europe!
- gspr 5y ago
  The solution as imagined wouldn't be worse than the problem. There should be a simple, easily accessible "reject all" (or the individual choices should default to reject). This is an issue with inforcement.
- altacc 5y ago
  You make it sound like the cookie consents are the only think the EU tackled, ignoring that it is only one small aspect of the EU's data privacy & protection legislation, which is having a big effect globally, not just in Europe. If you look at the GDPR penalties & fines so far you won't find any about cookie consent but you will find a lot of examples of bad governance, incompetence and bad data use, which people should be concerned about. Your "nothing" in this case if actually quite a lot of oversight which many people are happy about (even it it's a constant consideration for some of us working with data). Your example of other ways to gain data about somebody is ALSO covered by GDPR. What's called the cookie consent is about customer data in general. All data provided directly or indirectly by a site visitor is subject to GDPR consideration, regardless of method. As to not being asked if you personally want a law to exist or affect you: that's not how laws & governments work. If you're in the EU, then it's part of the governing institutions that we contribute to. If you're outside the EU, then it's the choice of the website you're visiting if they provide different experiences for you vs European visitors but again, you have an individual choice about if you visit those sites but your individual opinion doesn't get to decide how somebody else's web site operates and which legislation they adhere to. It sounds like this is more an issue of personal inconvenience, which most of us share. The problem here is the implementation (e.g. it could have been more directed at browser vendors to implement global privacy controls) but while the current execution is bad the underlying reasoning for data protection is sound.
nickpp 5y ago
The article is trying to make the case that the problem is that the "Reject All" button is difficult to find on the cookie popup and it's the site's fault for that. No. Let's make one thing clear. The problem is with the popup itself, with the fact that it exists. And it exists because the bone-headed law that required it: the GDPR. The fact that the very first decision I have to make when visiting a website is about an issue I don't five a flying f&$# about is mind-boggling. The fact that somebody decided to elevate for me something completely harmless ("tracking me online") to a level more important than any other issue when it comes to web browsing is absolutely incredible. The fact that the cost of both the implementation of this on the website and that of the stupid selection imposed on the site visitor was completely ignored is aggressively idiotic. And the fact that "somebody" made that decision into one of the most ambiguous, evasive, but at the same incredibly punishing laws around is criminal. How do we know this? The perfect A/B test. We had the web before GDPR. It wasn't pretty but it worked. Now we have the web after GDPR. It's a cluster-f&$%. The only thing that changed: the stupid law. Abolish GDPR!
- mola 5y ago
  What? Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your concent seems very serious. The fact you got used to it doesn't make it less serious. Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? I'd guess not, so what's the difference with web tracking? GDPR is good, the sites are doing their best to make the GDPR experience bad to encourage the existence of people with your opinion. It doesn't have to be that way, and hopefully the regulator will use its teeth and make companies using obvious dark patterns pay for their infringements.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your consent seems very serious. Really?! What is the worst thing that can happen? What exactly is the danger here? > Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? While I browse the web? Sure, why not. I would certainly worry if it was the government doing it, since the government usually has nefarious reasons, but a private party... go straight ahead. That doesn't mean I can't take my own measures if and when I want my privacy, but that is MY choice. Not an idiotic law "protecting me" against my own will.
fmajid 5y ago
My main browser (Vivaldi) is set to block cookies unless a site is whitelisted. When a site like TechCrunch plays fast and loose with the rules, I open it in Firefox, then erase all cookies using the "Forget" button (I wish it were even easier like the Firefox Focus app on iOS). Trusting a site to comply is a fool's errand, but I applaud NOYB's efforts to enforce GDPR against dark patterns. The EU has also learned its lessons from the Ireland DPC's willful obstruction and the ePrivacy directive is likely to be enforced centrally, not by national authorities with conflicts of interest like Ireland's. Finally, it is not enough to have the firms discontinue the dark patterns. They must also be forced to delete all the data collected, with auditors sent at their expense to verify this has been done. That in itself would be a much better deterrent than the fines themselves.
everyone 5y ago
Its a bit ironic that the very website the article is on is itself a pretty bad example of this.
frereubu 5y ago
This has been my view from the beginning of GDPR. People were complaining that it wasn't having an immediate effect, but governments and law take time, which is generally a good thing in most cases because moving fast and breaking things when you're a government or a legal system can be catastrophic. But once the full weight of the law is put behind things like cookie consent (I often think of these things like the length of time it takes for a supertanker to change course) it will absolutely impose itself. Also, for those here pointing out the Techcrunch cookie notice, for all the cognitive dissonance that entails (and at least they're reporting it!) I would argue that this is due to sites not wanting to be at a competitive disadvantage. If / when this is properly enforced and the initial squealing from companies is over, they'll generally be OK with it as long as everyone has to comply.
admissionsguy 5y ago
For people who do not deem browser cookies a grave threat to their welfare, there is https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/, a very practical browser extension that mitigates most effects of this abysmal law. It's nearly as helpful as adblock these days, if not more, since few ads are as obtrusive as the cookie popups.
blueblisters 5y ago
The most annoying (and ironical) aspect of cookie consent banners is that websites don't remember your consent choices if you're using a browser setting that doesn't store cookies (say incognito mode). Moreover most websites use consent banners for all website visitors (regardless of whether they are in the EU or not), making the web unusable for everyone in the world. Thanks, EU.
Shadonototro 5y ago
i just close the website with shady popups, it is that simple now

45 points by Liriel 5y ago

For a comedic experience, open this article with your ad blocker turned off.

Real article link: https://outline.com/qtxEx3 https://outline.com/qtxEx3 The blurred webpage is a lie - just a jpeg. Plus, it's a yahoo consent domain. Very ironic.

WA 5y ago

Sounds good. Target https://www.consentmanager.net/ https://www.consentmanager.net/ and similar services and it'll trickle down to a lot of websites.

kkz 5y ago

And they employ exactly the same tactics they describe. TC is such a pile of gunk.

ginko 5y ago
Eh, they used to be a lot worse. Nowadays it's just 2-3 clicks to reject all tracking on TC. Could be better but I'll take it. Same with Google and Facebook. It looks like they're starting to get in line.

cluoma 5y ago

An article dissing cookie popups has a cookie popup with no easy opt out. Amazing.

hannob 5y ago
It's easy to make that take. But try to see the story from the other side. The person writing that article is a journalist who almost certainly has no direct connection to the ad department of his site and the people who are responsible for the cookie banner. (I sympathize, because I'm a journalist with no direct connection to any of those things.) It's an unfortunate reality that most media orgs use shitty ad tech. There's also an alignment of incentives that makes it hard for media orgs to do anything else. For a journalist there's few options how to handle this: 1. Still write about these things and be called hypocritical. 2. Don't write about these things and avoid being called hypocritical. 3. Write about these things on sites without cookies and shitty ads (e.g. a private, simple blog) and don't get payed. I don't think 2 is particularly preferrable and it should be understandable that 3 is not particularly attractive.
- csunbird 5y ago
  The article also just a re-write of the original article, and contains no original content.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

Besides an automated system, I'm wondering if we could benefit from some sort of reporting tool to report sites abusing this UX, with hall of shame and if possible make it easy for the enforcers to know what to focus on. So folks can report a site if a) it has poor UX to reject all b) despite rejecting all it still uses cookies invalidly. Seems like something like that would already exist?

50kIters 5y ago

Ironic that the cookie-wall on this site commits offence #1 as outlined in the article.

jwr 5y ago

So happy to see that happening. Companies are making a mockery of the laws with the tracking "consent" mazes, auto-enabled "legitimate interest" boxes, etc. I am also amazed how it's possible to track customers across devices forever, but it seemingly isn't possible to remember my refusal and it is necessary to ask me again very often. I really hope this reckoning is going to move forward.

dukoid 5y ago

Ideally there would be a standardized opt-out button with a recognizable icon in a banner of limited size at the top

esarbe 5y ago
Maybe even integrate that in the browser's privacy overview?
- mr_mitm 5y ago
  Yes, they could use an HTTP header for that. We could call it "Do Not Track".
  - esarbe 5y ago
    That was funny. :D
- rwmj 5y ago
  Exactly, my browser simply rejects all third-party cookies (except from a whitelist) and has a short time limit on the others. No need at all for consent buttons.

csunbird 5y ago

This is already covered in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27340769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27340769 which also links to original article. Save a click away from techcrunch, as its ironic that they are also not compliant.

Barrin92 5y ago

Should have happened a long time ago. Hit everyone who resorts to these pathetic dark patterns with a company-ending fine. If all the buzzfeed and gawker clones pull out of the market, even better. Two birds with one stone.

ivoras 5y ago

I was and still am totally amazed that people still think it's a good idea to require each individual site owner to comply with that kind of policy instead of letting the browser vendors do the hard work. Which is easier - to modify and monitor billions of different sites, or to create a framework and obligations on the side of browsers to handle it? Something like requiring all browsers to start with cookies disabled, and mandating exactly how those users who do consent to tracking can be tracked (up to minute technical details), would do wonders if the goal is to actually improve privacy instead of just making it easy for Google and Facebook to continue doing what they do, while making life harder for millions of small companies and increasing bureucratic load while doing it.

DelightOne 5y ago
I still haven't figured out how to opt out after initially opting in. Having a standard place in the browser would make this simple.
- dvdkhlng 5y ago
  I think, in case you delete all your cookies, you will get a new cookie popup the next time you visit a web-site. As I usually configure browsers to not keep cookies between browser-restarts, I'm quite used to being asked anew about cookie consent every single time I visit a page :/
jdjgktntnrk 5y ago
Maybe we could send a header to websites letting them know that the user wants to opt out of all non-essential cookies. We could call it DoNotTrack, or something along those lines. I think HN would love the idea.
- sharken 5y ago
  It's unclear if Do Not Track will be useful for cookie consent, certainly it will take a lot of time. Here is an article from 2018 about it. https://www.w3.org/blog/2018/06/do-not-track-and-the-gdpr/ https://www.w3.org/blog/2018/06/do-not-track-and-the-gdpr/ I think the intent of the GDPR is good, but we now have websites that are harder to use than they have to be. In addition to that companies all over Europe have to spend a lot of time to be GDPR compliant. I think it's time to take a good look at GDPR and evaluate if it's doing what is was meant to do.

iconara 5y ago

> The problem is that most websites simply aren’t compliant. They choose to make a mockery of the law by offering a skewed choice: Typically a super simple opt-in (to hand them all your data) vs a highly confusing, frustrating, tedious opt-out (and sometimes even no reject option at all). Like the Techcrunch site where this was published.

artjomb 5y ago
And it's not possible to change/withdraw consent after allowing it. I've searched 5 minutes and found no link or widget that would get me to that screen.
croo 5y ago
I know right?! I went there and met by a giant wall of GDPR bullshit without a button to say "no", buttons grayed out but clickable, multiple page scroll down to reach the desired opt out, default everything off on the first page, but default as you went further... prime example all the way. At one point in the process I got worried that the GDPR popup is itself whats posted and not an article.

woodpanel 5y ago

The Gist: A non-profit developed a cralwer which can pick up misleading (or non-working) cookie-consent banners. > with a plan to file up to 10,000 complaints against offenders over the course of this year > Today it’s announcing the first batch of 560 complaints, large and small > noyb is even giving offenders a warning first — and a full month to clean up their ways In general I'm not a fan of vigilante law enforcers, specifically if they attach an invoice to their warnings. I hope noyb won't and that the small in large and small doesn't mean people will loose their jobs. If that's the case then god-speed. If not I fear a lot of warned sites are going to be run by barely profitable family-run businesses, who barely managed to have a consent-banner at all and whose sites are barely visted anyways (thus causing next to little harm).

Majestic121 5y ago
It's pretty easy for family run business to respect the law : don't track your customers. No need for any banner if you only use cookies for legitimate interest.
hnaccount_rng 5y ago
They won't. > Anders als bei "Abmahnungen" die gerade in Deutschland problematische Ausmaße angenommen haben, fallen für die betroffenen Unternehmen dabei keinerlei Kosten an, da das Projekt durch Spenden der rund 4.000 Fördermitglieder von noyb finanziert wird. https://noyb.eu/de/noyb-setzt-dem-cookie-banner-wahnsinn-ein-ende https://noyb.eu/de/noyb-setzt-dem-cookie-banner-wahnsinn-ein...
- thargor 5y ago
  Simplified Translation: they don't charge the corporations anything. Noyb is financed by donations.
thargor 5y ago
noyb are not "vigilante law enforcers". Law enforcement is police and courts. Noyb notifies corporations of their GDPR violations. Only if they do not comply they will notify authorities/sue.

l33tman 5y ago

You can't even click on the techcrunch link if you have uMatrix, it's blocked due to their redirect tracking. TC (and some other notable sites, I think engadget and others) employs a tracking-by-redirect scheme through https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers which is a well-known tracker that has been discussed here and on many reddit threads it seems...

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

> TechCrunch is part of Verizon Media. > > By clicking "Accept all" you agree that Verizon Media and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies and process your personal data, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. The irony.

shp0ngle 5y ago

This is TechCrunch cookie consent. https://i.imgur.com/laO6kiw.png https://i.imgur.com/laO6kiw.png

jdjgktntnrk 5y ago
Before viewing that image I had to accept the Imgur cookie consent :) It's cookie consents all the way down...
- shp0ngle 5y ago
  oh no, sorry
Gwypaas 5y ago
The worst is the "Legitimate interest" when clicking manage options. Apparently 235 companies have a "legitimate interest" in tracking me which is on by default unless I click "Reject All". https://imgur.com/a/QKzW9pc https://imgur.com/a/QKzW9pc

Elrac 5y ago

My biggest problem with Europe's mandatory cookie warning is that the solution is worse than the problem. I'm aware that once I enter somebody's site there's a gazillion ways for that somebody to get data about me. If cookies are blocked they'll find another way. But thanks to Europe's feeling they need to nanny me, I get those obnoxious cookie warning popups on every site I visit. Worse, I can't opt out of the popups. Infuriatingly, Europe didn't ask me if I _want_ to be protected like this. Of the many problems with the Internet and Web sites, I feel Europe has fixed the most trivial, in the most obnoxious possible way. Thanks for nothing, Europe!

gspr 5y ago
The solution as imagined wouldn't be worse than the problem. There should be a simple, easily accessible "reject all" (or the individual choices should default to reject). This is an issue with inforcement.
altacc 5y ago
You make it sound like the cookie consents are the only think the EU tackled, ignoring that it is only one small aspect of the EU's data privacy & protection legislation, which is having a big effect globally, not just in Europe. If you look at the GDPR penalties & fines so far you won't find any about cookie consent but you will find a lot of examples of bad governance, incompetence and bad data use, which people should be concerned about. Your "nothing" in this case if actually quite a lot of oversight which many people are happy about (even it it's a constant consideration for some of us working with data). Your example of other ways to gain data about somebody is ALSO covered by GDPR. What's called the cookie consent is about customer data in general. All data provided directly or indirectly by a site visitor is subject to GDPR consideration, regardless of method. As to not being asked if you personally want a law to exist or affect you: that's not how laws & governments work. If you're in the EU, then it's part of the governing institutions that we contribute to. If you're outside the EU, then it's the choice of the website you're visiting if they provide different experiences for you vs European visitors but again, you have an individual choice about if you visit those sites but your individual opinion doesn't get to decide how somebody else's web site operates and which legislation they adhere to. It sounds like this is more an issue of personal inconvenience, which most of us share. The problem here is the implementation (e.g. it could have been more directed at browser vendors to implement global privacy controls) but while the current execution is bad the underlying reasoning for data protection is sound.

nickpp 5y ago

The article is trying to make the case that the problem is that the "Reject All" button is difficult to find on the cookie popup and it's the site's fault for that. No. Let's make one thing clear. The problem is with the popup itself, with the fact that it exists. And it exists because the bone-headed law that required it: the GDPR. The fact that the very first decision I have to make when visiting a website is about an issue I don't five a flying f&$# about is mind-boggling. The fact that somebody decided to elevate for me something completely harmless ("tracking me online") to a level more important than any other issue when it comes to web browsing is absolutely incredible. The fact that the cost of both the implementation of this on the website and that of the stupid selection imposed on the site visitor was completely ignored is aggressively idiotic. And the fact that "somebody" made that decision into one of the most ambiguous, evasive, but at the same incredibly punishing laws around is criminal. How do we know this? The perfect A/B test. We had the web before GDPR. It wasn't pretty but it worked. Now we have the web after GDPR. It's a cluster-f&$%. The only thing that changed: the stupid law. Abolish GDPR!

mola 5y ago
What? Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your concent seems very serious. The fact you got used to it doesn't make it less serious. Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? I'd guess not, so what's the difference with web tracking? GDPR is good, the sites are doing their best to make the GDPR experience bad to encourage the existence of people with your opinion. It doesn't have to be that way, and hopefully the regulator will use its teeth and make companies using obvious dark patterns pay for their infringements.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your consent seems very serious. Really?! What is the worst thing that can happen? What exactly is the danger here? > Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? While I browse the web? Sure, why not. I would certainly worry if it was the government doing it, since the government usually has nefarious reasons, but a private party... go straight ahead. That doesn't mean I can't take my own measures if and when I want my privacy, but that is MY choice. Not an idiotic law "protecting me" against my own will.

fmajid 5y ago

My main browser (Vivaldi) is set to block cookies unless a site is whitelisted. When a site like TechCrunch plays fast and loose with the rules, I open it in Firefox, then erase all cookies using the "Forget" button (I wish it were even easier like the Firefox Focus app on iOS). Trusting a site to comply is a fool's errand, but I applaud NOYB's efforts to enforce GDPR against dark patterns. The EU has also learned its lessons from the Ireland DPC's willful obstruction and the ePrivacy directive is likely to be enforced centrally, not by national authorities with conflicts of interest like Ireland's. Finally, it is not enough to have the firms discontinue the dark patterns. They must also be forced to delete all the data collected, with auditors sent at their expense to verify this has been done. That in itself would be a much better deterrent than the fines themselves.

everyone 5y ago

Its a bit ironic that the very website the article is on is itself a pretty bad example of this.

frereubu 5y ago

This has been my view from the beginning of GDPR. People were complaining that it wasn't having an immediate effect, but governments and law take time, which is generally a good thing in most cases because moving fast and breaking things when you're a government or a legal system can be catastrophic. But once the full weight of the law is put behind things like cookie consent (I often think of these things like the length of time it takes for a supertanker to change course) it will absolutely impose itself. Also, for those here pointing out the Techcrunch cookie notice, for all the cognitive dissonance that entails (and at least they're reporting it!) I would argue that this is due to sites not wanting to be at a competitive disadvantage. If / when this is properly enforced and the initial squealing from companies is over, they'll generally be OK with it as long as everyone has to comply.

admissionsguy 5y ago

For people who do not deem browser cookies a grave threat to their welfare, there is https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/, a very practical browser extension that mitigates most effects of this abysmal law. It's nearly as helpful as adblock these days, if not more, since few ads are as obtrusive as the cookie popups.

blueblisters 5y ago

The most annoying (and ironical) aspect of cookie consent banners is that websites don't remember your consent choices if you're using a browser setting that doesn't store cookies (say incognito mode). Moreover most websites use consent banners for all website visitors (regardless of whether they are in the EU or not), making the web unusable for everyone in the world. Thanks, EU.

Shadonototro 5y ago

i just close the website with shady popups, it is that simple now