4 ms·

>They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. The GDPR however does require explicit consent. >Should we really assume that t

>They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. The GDPR however does require explicit consent. >Should we really assume that the client has not taken any responsibility when they willfully type in https://www.somewebsite.com/ https://www.somewebsite.com/ and hit enter? I didn't type in anything or click enter to get to that site. >Since users can block cookies/javascript, Except when that breaks stuff.

kempbellt 5y ago
> The GDPR however does require explicit consent. I think you missed my point. I not asking about what the law says. I'm asking why a person willfully choosing to visit a site is not considered a form of consent, since it requires an intentional action from a user. If intentionally visiting the site isn't consent, how is it that clicking an "Accept" button magically is? Both are intentional actions by the user. Feels like walking into a store and saying, "I don't consent to be here". That's fine, but you chose to be here, so now here you are. Feel free to leave and not come back. You have that choice. Answered by another user: It depends on what the cookie is used for, and I understand this perspective to a degree. Session cookies are required for a lot of basic functionality and have been around forever - people are used to them. But cross-site tracking and other telemetry tracking for targeted advertisement is a bit of an overreach, and very invasive. I get that people don't like it, but you can block a lot of that, and opt out of visiting the site entirely. I don't understand how adding an "Accept" does much. Feels like a superficial change. > I didn't type in anything or click enter to get to that site. Are you being pedantic...? If you clicked the link, you engaged in an intentional action - which is my point. > Except when that breaks stuff. Then don't visit?

kempbellt 5y ago

> The GDPR however does require explicit consent. I think you missed my point. I not asking about what the law says. I'm asking why a person willfully choosing to visit a site is not considered a form of consent, since it requires an intentional action from a user. If intentionally visiting the site isn't consent, how is it that clicking an "Accept" button magically is? Both are intentional actions by the user. Feels like walking into a store and saying, "I don't consent to be here". That's fine, but you chose to be here, so now here you are. Feel free to leave and not come back. You have that choice. Answered by another user: It depends on what the cookie is used for, and I understand this perspective to a degree. Session cookies are required for a lot of basic functionality and have been around forever - people are used to them. But cross-site tracking and other telemetry tracking for targeted advertisement is a bit of an overreach, and very invasive. I get that people don't like it, but you can block a lot of that, and opt out of visiting the site entirely. I don't understand how adding an "Accept" does much. Feels like a superficial change. > I didn't type in anything or click enter to get to that site. Are you being pedantic...? If you clicked the link, you engaged in an intentional action - which is my point. > Except when that breaks stuff. Then don't visit?