4 ms·
I have been building some sites where I have explicitly tried to remove or avoid cookies completely. It is really tricky as any third party script or embed can
by 7952 5y ago
I have been building some sites where I have explicitly tried to remove or avoid cookies completely. It is really tricky as any third party script or embed can set cookies, which may be retained depending on browser version. We end up using generic cookie prompts just in case to appease corporate compliance even when nothing is usually set on the page. And the http nature of cookies make automating things much more difficult. You can't just drop in some javascript that overrides document.cookie, and even if you could it would not be supported by all browsers.
What I would like is to be able to whitelist domains in content security policy and reject everything else by default.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Dayshine 5y agoWhy avoid cookies entirely? You don't need a cookie banner for cookies essential to the functioning of your site.
- akie 5y agoYou want to avoid cookies entirely so that you don't need a cookie policy and that you don't need a cookie banner. It's also significantly easier to convince a lawyer that you don't need these things if you can prove that there are no cookies whatsoever. And even then they'll be suspicious. It's harder than it looks, just embedding a YouTube video for example already sets third-party cookies. Same with embedding a Twitter feed or Google Analytics. There are solutions for all of these things, but the standard/easy way of doing these things means your user gets a third-party cookie, which means you need the banner.
- hnarn 5y ago> You want to avoid cookies entirely so that you don't need a cookie policy and that you don't need a cookie banner. Wrong. Functional cookies are exempt.
- nickpp 5y agoWhat are "functional cookies"? Are analytics/telemetries cookies functional? Are cookies identifying google users so they can receive targeted content but also ads "functional"? GDPR never bothered to specify. This is why GDPR is broken and sadly it broke the web.
- hnarn 5y agoHave you tried finding the answer to your question online? There are clear examples of what "functional cookies" mean, even straight from the EU.
- nickpp 5y agoThere are many opinions online, but there is no authoritative, definitive answer. GDPR was made vague by design "to prevent future exploits". Even lawyers are arguing the details, three years after its introduction. This made GDPR in effect one of the most expensive regulations we had to implement as IT companies. It is also so incredibly punitive that everybody choose to implement it in the most conservative way possible, at the expense of the UX. Thus the cookie popups and banners.
- M2Ys4U 5y agoThe GDPR doesn't even mention cookies. It's the ePrivacy Directive that regulates them (or, more precisely, "information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber"). And the ePrivacy Directive does, in fact, define what's allowed without notifying the user: "any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user."
- nickpp 5y agoThis kind of vague, high-level language is exactly why, if you reject cookies, you'll receive the same damn popup next time you visit the website until you relent and click Yes. They never tried applying their abstract concepts to the real world until we had to and the result is "The Web of Cookie Popups".
- tgv 5y agoStill, the boss said: "add a banner anyway." Better safe than sorry, and everyone expects it by now.
- 7952 5y agoThese particular sites didn't need essential cookies and discussion about privacy/cookies was taking lots of time for no real benefit. Also, I believe philosophically in trying to reduce things like analytics and tracking.