4 ms·

Honestly these cookie laws are a shit show. The experience of browsing the web in Europe is shit due to all the popups asking you about cookies. Browsers have e

by baby 5y ago

Honestly these cookie laws are a shit show. The experience of browsing the web in Europe is shit due to all the popups asking you about cookies. Browsers have extensions to manage cookies, why force website to come up with their own unique UI for cookies? Furthermore cookies are not even user-friendly concepts, they are made to be digested by machines, it’s such a misunderstanding of regulators type of situation.

the_other 5y ago
The intent of the laws is to force businesses to make better decisions about how they monetise and how they manage user data. Most businesses have reacted by refusing to make these decisions in favour of users, instead choosing to make the experience of using their sites unpleasant to generate a backlash against the law. Like you're doing. You could say that the law is failing because it opened the loopholes allowing businesses to choose to behave badly, externalising the decision making to users. If that's your opinion, can you be a bit more specific, so we can dig into that issue and explore solutions and objections?
- baby 5y ago
  The law is failing because it created a worst situation. This has been going on for what seems like a decade. Nobody won from this. This is a bad law QED.
  - dvdkon 5y ago
    I don't see how the situation is altogether worse. Now everyone is aware about the extent of tracking and can opt out, even if most sites don't make it as easy as it should be. Is clicking "yes"/"no" such a big hassle that you'd rather have blanket tracking everywhere?
    - baby 5y ago
      Do you live in Europe?
      - dvdkon 5y ago
        Yes, and I think the GDPR has been a net benefit for me and society, even if enforcement has been really slow.
  - cryptonym 5y ago
    That law never forced companies to worsen user-experience, it forced them to disclose what they do with your data and limit what they can do without consent. This post is about companies building user-hostile and illegal UX. Are you blaming the law for this?
    - baby 5y ago
      It doesn’t matter what the intent of the law was, effectively it created a worse experience for everyone.
      - cryptonym 5y ago
        The law didn't create worse experience, companies did by not following the law. They just went with some dark pattern to keep data and try to work around the law. Guess what? This is illegal and this is exactly what this post is about. It's a bit weird to complain about the law instead of companies trying to extort your personal data, process and resell them, illegally and without your consent...
avianlyric 5y ago
There’s nothing wrong with cookie laws in the EU, they don’t exist anymore and have been completely replaced by GDPR. GDPR is a pretty simple law, if you want to collect personal data on people, you need to get their informed consent. Just like you need their informed consent to have sex with them. How you get that consent is up to each company, but GDPR lays some pretty clear rules about what doesn’t count as informed consent. Such as creating flows or pop ups that encourage people to click accept button, or by trying to bundle multiple unrelated consents together under a single button. How you present that UI isn’t specified, you could use a cookie banner, or you could just respect Do No Track headers etc. Equally the law doesn’t care if you use cookies, or local storage or anything else. It only cares if your collecting personal data. Not how you’re collecting it. If you’re using cookies for legitimate reasons like enabling user sessions, no need for a banner, you’re not collecting personal data without consent. Companies have chosen this hellscape of cookie banner etc in an attempt to skirt the law and avoid doing what should be doing. Letting people use the internet without having their every click tracked and aggregated. Thankfully we’re now starting to see more enforcement showing this type of bullshit won’t be tolerated. Soon people will start getting rid of cookie banner etc, once it becomes clear that their a fig leaf that won’t protect them from legal repercussions, and that they’ll make more money by asking for consent nicely and not punishing people for refusing.
matsemann 5y ago
> Browsers have extensions to manage cookies, why force website to come up with their own unique UI for cookies? You haven't understood the laws. It's not about cookies, it's about tracking and personal data. If you are annoyed with the popups, be annoyed with the companies' disregard for your privacy. Why does every little site I visit ask for my consent to track me? The problem isn't the law, it's those stupid sites wanting to exploit users.
- baby 5y ago
  If you have a systemic issue you can’t blame the issue, you blame the root cause. Here the root cause for all the popups is the law. Amend the law.
pjerem 5y ago
No, these cookie laws are in fact really well implemented, they are just oversimplified in the press (such a coincidence). Cookies are not forbidden neither they require you to ask anything, as long as they are useful to the service you provide. That's why a lot of websites don't show those banners while however using cookies to store session tokens, user preferences... But, yes, when you are browsing content without being logged in or without having the need to store something, the law forbids the website to send you cookies. Because they are not needed to execute the service, they are just there to track you. And even if you consider that tracking is necessary to monetize your content, well, in this case, you have to require the consent. To me it's a totally legitimate law. It's easy not to deal with cookie popup : just respect your users and don't track them without notification. As a user, you can rant about the law. Or you can just decide that a website enforcing you to accept cookies to read some junk content is totally missing to respect you as an individual.
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  You can argue the law is just and right till the cows come home but the reality is it has made browsing the web much worse for everyone in the EU for unclear benefit.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    It's a matter of taste. For me the web is much better like this. Your website is trying to track me to sell me a car or a vacuum cleaner and you dont want me to refuse consent ? No problem, i'll leave. At least I'm informed.
    - baby 5y ago
      It’s not a matter of taste. Websites with popups have worse user experience than websites that don’t have them.
detaro 5y ago
Websites are free to standardize on a browser extension that provides a conforming interface and use that for users that have it installed, I don't see how the law bans that. Similarly you also don't need to put a full-screen modal to ask people to opt-in for things that require opt-in, you can just put the switches somewhere on the page. But of course many websites don't want to make it easy to ignore opt-in options, but would rather annoy you with. (Although nowadays it's not that unusual to see it done e.g. with social media embeds: locally cached preview image and opt-in button to load the embed instead of prompting on page load)
Aachen 5y ago
You usually make sensible comments, so that even you are not understanding that the law says nothing about cookies and is needed only in specific circumstances when the data processor wants to do something that cannot be reasonably expected and violates "the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the [user]" means we need to better communicate what this law actually requires and when. > The experience of browsing the web in Europe is shit due to all the popups asking you about [some technical thing that you can, indeed, control in your browser]. I just made this overview of when a cookie wall is required, hoping that it might help clear this up. (Edit: for mobile https://pastebin.com/raw/gDn5AwuV https://pastebin.com/raw/gDn5AwuV ) +-------------------------------------+ | Do you store data about users which | | are merely viewing pages? | +-------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ yes `-no->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------+ | Can this data be traced | | to an individual person? | +---------------------------+ | \ ________________________ yes `-no->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +------------------------------------+ | Are you legally required to do so? | +------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +--------------------------------------+ | Is it necessary, e.g. to make site | | features work that the user enabled? | +--------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------------------+ | Is it to protect the user's vital | | interest, or are you a government and | | the processing is necessary? | +---------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------------+ | Considering recital 47, do you | | have a legitimate interest? | +---------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +----------------------------------------+ | Then processing their personal data is | | none of your business but you can ask | | for their permission ("consent"). | +----------------------------------------+ \ _________________________ `----->|You need a cookie wall.| ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ What most people think when they see a GDPR banner: stupid law, politicians are stupid, "it's such a misunderstanding of regulators type of situation." Reality: website wants to do something that you don't want them to do, and now the websites are required to let you make an informed decision.

by baby 5y ago

the_other 5y ago

The intent of the laws is to force businesses to make better decisions about how they monetise and how they manage user data. Most businesses have reacted by refusing to make these decisions in favour of users, instead choosing to make the experience of using their sites unpleasant to generate a backlash against the law. Like you're doing. You could say that the law is failing because it opened the loopholes allowing businesses to choose to behave badly, externalising the decision making to users. If that's your opinion, can you be a bit more specific, so we can dig into that issue and explore solutions and objections?

baby 5y ago
The law is failing because it created a worst situation. This has been going on for what seems like a decade. Nobody won from this. This is a bad law QED.
- dvdkon 5y ago
  I don't see how the situation is altogether worse. Now everyone is aware about the extent of tracking and can opt out, even if most sites don't make it as easy as it should be. Is clicking "yes"/"no" such a big hassle that you'd rather have blanket tracking everywhere?
  - baby 5y ago
    Do you live in Europe?
    - dvdkon 5y ago
      Yes, and I think the GDPR has been a net benefit for me and society, even if enforcement has been really slow.
- cryptonym 5y ago
  That law never forced companies to worsen user-experience, it forced them to disclose what they do with your data and limit what they can do without consent. This post is about companies building user-hostile and illegal UX. Are you blaming the law for this?
  - baby 5y ago
    It doesn’t matter what the intent of the law was, effectively it created a worse experience for everyone.
    - cryptonym 5y ago
      The law didn't create worse experience, companies did by not following the law. They just went with some dark pattern to keep data and try to work around the law. Guess what? This is illegal and this is exactly what this post is about. It's a bit weird to complain about the law instead of companies trying to extort your personal data, process and resell them, illegally and without your consent...

avianlyric 5y ago

There’s nothing wrong with cookie laws in the EU, they don’t exist anymore and have been completely replaced by GDPR. GDPR is a pretty simple law, if you want to collect personal data on people, you need to get their informed consent. Just like you need their informed consent to have sex with them. How you get that consent is up to each company, but GDPR lays some pretty clear rules about what doesn’t count as informed consent. Such as creating flows or pop ups that encourage people to click accept button, or by trying to bundle multiple unrelated consents together under a single button. How you present that UI isn’t specified, you could use a cookie banner, or you could just respect Do No Track headers etc. Equally the law doesn’t care if you use cookies, or local storage or anything else. It only cares if your collecting personal data. Not how you’re collecting it. If you’re using cookies for legitimate reasons like enabling user sessions, no need for a banner, you’re not collecting personal data without consent. Companies have chosen this hellscape of cookie banner etc in an attempt to skirt the law and avoid doing what should be doing. Letting people use the internet without having their every click tracked and aggregated. Thankfully we’re now starting to see more enforcement showing this type of bullshit won’t be tolerated. Soon people will start getting rid of cookie banner etc, once it becomes clear that their a fig leaf that won’t protect them from legal repercussions, and that they’ll make more money by asking for consent nicely and not punishing people for refusing.

matsemann 5y ago

> Browsers have extensions to manage cookies, why force website to come up with their own unique UI for cookies? You haven't understood the laws. It's not about cookies, it's about tracking and personal data. If you are annoyed with the popups, be annoyed with the companies' disregard for your privacy. Why does every little site I visit ask for my consent to track me? The problem isn't the law, it's those stupid sites wanting to exploit users.

baby 5y ago
If you have a systemic issue you can’t blame the issue, you blame the root cause. Here the root cause for all the popups is the law. Amend the law.

pjerem 5y ago

No, these cookie laws are in fact really well implemented, they are just oversimplified in the press (such a coincidence). Cookies are not forbidden neither they require you to ask anything, as long as they are useful to the service you provide. That's why a lot of websites don't show those banners while however using cookies to store session tokens, user preferences... But, yes, when you are browsing content without being logged in or without having the need to store something, the law forbids the website to send you cookies. Because they are not needed to execute the service, they are just there to track you. And even if you consider that tracking is necessary to monetize your content, well, in this case, you have to require the consent. To me it's a totally legitimate law. It's easy not to deal with cookie popup : just respect your users and don't track them without notification. As a user, you can rant about the law. Or you can just decide that a website enforcing you to accept cookies to read some junk content is totally missing to respect you as an individual.

saddlerustle 5y ago
You can argue the law is just and right till the cows come home but the reality is it has made browsing the web much worse for everyone in the EU for unclear benefit.
- pjerem 5y ago
  It's a matter of taste. For me the web is much better like this. Your website is trying to track me to sell me a car or a vacuum cleaner and you dont want me to refuse consent ? No problem, i'll leave. At least I'm informed.
  - baby 5y ago
    It’s not a matter of taste. Websites with popups have worse user experience than websites that don’t have them.

detaro 5y ago

Websites are free to standardize on a browser extension that provides a conforming interface and use that for users that have it installed, I don't see how the law bans that. Similarly you also don't need to put a full-screen modal to ask people to opt-in for things that require opt-in, you can just put the switches somewhere on the page. But of course many websites don't want to make it easy to ignore opt-in options, but would rather annoy you with. (Although nowadays it's not that unusual to see it done e.g. with social media embeds: locally cached preview image and opt-in button to load the embed instead of prompting on page load)

Aachen 5y ago

You usually make sensible comments, so that even you are not understanding that the law says nothing about cookies and is needed only in specific circumstances when the data processor wants to do something that cannot be reasonably expected and violates "the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the [user]" means we need to better communicate what this law actually requires and when. > The experience of browsing the web in Europe is shit due to all the popups asking you about [some technical thing that you can, indeed, control in your browser]. I just made this overview of when a cookie wall is required, hoping that it might help clear this up. (Edit: for mobile https://pastebin.com/raw/gDn5AwuV https://pastebin.com/raw/gDn5AwuV ) +-------------------------------------+ | Do you store data about users which | | are merely viewing pages? | +-------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ yes `-no->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------+ | Can this data be traced | | to an individual person? | +---------------------------+ | \ ________________________ yes `-no->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +------------------------------------+ | Are you legally required to do so? | +------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +--------------------------------------+ | Is it necessary, e.g. to make site | | features work that the user enabled? | +--------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------------------+ | Is it to protect the user's vital | | interest, or are you a government and | | the processing is necessary? | +---------------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +---------------------------------+ | Considering recital 47, do you | | have a legitimate interest? | +---------------------------------+ | \ ________________________ no `-yes->|No cookie wall needed.| | ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ +----------------------------------------+ | Then processing their personal data is | | none of your business but you can ask | | for their permission ("consent"). | +----------------------------------------+ \ _________________________ `----->|You need a cookie wall.| ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ What most people think when they see a GDPR banner: stupid law, politicians are stupid, "it's such a misunderstanding of regulators type of situation." Reality: website wants to do something that you don't want them to do, and now the websites are required to let you make an informed decision.