3 ms·

Same goes the for 'cookie law'. A significant fraction of the web is in violation. The lack of enforcement sends the message that non-compliance is acceptable,

Same goes the for 'cookie law'. A significant fraction of the web is in violation. The lack of enforcement sends the message that non-compliance is acceptable, so it's become the norm.

jtbayly 5y ago
What cookie law? The one that states I have to make my website worse for everybody to use? Yeah, I definitely ignore that law, and I wish 100% of website owners did. It feels to me like 99% of them follow it.
- ben_w 5y ago
  There is no law stating you have to make your website worse. Making your website worse is just a what certain analytics providers want you to do so you keep paying for their services. https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
- debesyla 5y ago
  I, personally, like it more when I can say "no, don't track me". It's only worse for the user when the cookie notification is blocking the content, there is no "no, I don't agree" button or clicking it means clicking trough 100 extra toggles.
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    Set the do not track flag if you trust website owners to actually listen to your request. If you don’t trust them to listen to your request, then being forced to manually tell every website you visit not to track you is obviously pointless and worse.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      It’s easier to trust a business to follow a law with teeth than to follow a mere non-binding header that politely requests the same thing.
      - foxfluff 5y ago
        I believe GPC is considered legally binding under CCPA. The DSA proposal also has language that appears to be intended to make such headers legally binding: "In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected."
      - jtbayly 5y ago
        What an utterly useless law. We have a convenient way for people to request universally that sites not track them. So let’s make a law that makes them have to ask “the right way” every. Single. Stinking. Site. On. The. Internet. Every. Single. Time. They. Visit. Every. Single. Site. One might be forgiven for assuming that the law was actually intending to accomplish the reverse of the stated goal. It gives site owners tons of explicit opt-ins that nobody can complain about, even though they were coerced.
        ben_w 5y ago
        > We have a convenient way for people to request universally that sites not track them DNT is utterly ignored to the point it’s officially deprecated in various browsers and the W3C working group for it disbanded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track > It gives site owners tons of explicit opt-ins that nobody can complain about, even though they were coerced. Coerced assent is expressly forbidden by GDPR, so we absolutely can and are complaining about this.

Same goes the for 'cookie law'. A significant fraction of the web is in violation. The lack of enforcement sends the message that non-compliance is acceptable, so it's become the norm.

jtbayly 5y ago

What cookie law? The one that states I have to make my website worse for everybody to use? Yeah, I definitely ignore that law, and I wish 100% of website owners did. It feels to me like 99% of them follow it.

ben_w 5y ago
There is no law stating you have to make your website worse. Making your website worse is just a what certain analytics providers want you to do so you keep paying for their services. https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
debesyla 5y ago
I, personally, like it more when I can say "no, don't track me". It's only worse for the user when the cookie notification is blocking the content, there is no "no, I don't agree" button or clicking it means clicking trough 100 extra toggles.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Set the do not track flag if you trust website owners to actually listen to your request. If you don’t trust them to listen to your request, then being forced to manually tell every website you visit not to track you is obviously pointless and worse.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    It’s easier to trust a business to follow a law with teeth than to follow a mere non-binding header that politely requests the same thing.
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      I believe GPC is considered legally binding under CCPA. The DSA proposal also has language that appears to be intended to make such headers legally binding: "In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected."
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      What an utterly useless law. We have a convenient way for people to request universally that sites not track them. So let’s make a law that makes them have to ask “the right way” every. Single. Stinking. Site. On. The. Internet. Every. Single. Time. They. Visit. Every. Single. Site. One might be forgiven for assuming that the law was actually intending to accomplish the reverse of the stated goal. It gives site owners tons of explicit opt-ins that nobody can complain about, even though they were coerced.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        > We have a convenient way for people to request universally that sites not track them DNT is utterly ignored to the point it’s officially deprecated in various browsers and the W3C working group for it disbanded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track > It gives site owners tons of explicit opt-ins that nobody can complain about, even though they were coerced. Coerced assent is expressly forbidden by GDPR, so we absolutely can and are complaining about this.