5 ms·

That would not respect the GDPR law. The point is to require consent. And as an user you should be annoyed and seek websites that respect you better. > Consent

That would not respect the GDPR law. The point is to require consent. And as an user you should be annoyed and seek websites that respect you better. > Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject's acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. If the data subject's consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.

logicalmonster 5y ago
> That would not respect the GDPR law. The point is to require consent. This is something that sounds good in theory, but in practice may be counterintuitively a bad solution that makes people less safe when you take into account how UX and human nature works. Most people don't read these forms. You're training people to instinctively click on any clickable buttons they see on page load to make the annoying banners go away as fast as possible. It's much easier for shady characters to get people to give up some permission that actually matters in this environment or agree to something awful that might actually harm them. This is doubly a problem on mobile, where the limited screen size means that you can't see anything unless you click on the shiny banner button. > And as an user you should be annoyed and seek websites that respect you better. To me, real respect means not wasting my time doing busy performative theater. However people choose to deal with cookies is a problem that should be handled on the browser level, not with every website trying to write their own explanation and have some cookie management consent form.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  The law is not about cookie management but privacy and data protection. Also, what you describe sounds a bit like the “do not track” failure.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    That was a failure because it was unenforced. The cookie consent banners are a failure of lawmakers to enforce a protocol solution. It is really weird seeing people apologize for this clunky piece of legislation. "That's how it is supposed to be: a qualitative step down all across the internet." You know what people do to get around this trashfire? They install adblockers.
    - speedgoose 5y ago
      It was a failure also because of Microsoft and their choice to enable do not track by default in internet explorer. The legislation could be improved of course, but personally I think these consent forms are fine. And it tells me immediately which website “value my data“.

logicalmonster 5y ago

> That would not respect the GDPR law. The point is to require consent. This is something that sounds good in theory, but in practice may be counterintuitively a bad solution that makes people less safe when you take into account how UX and human nature works. Most people don't read these forms. You're training people to instinctively click on any clickable buttons they see on page load to make the annoying banners go away as fast as possible. It's much easier for shady characters to get people to give up some permission that actually matters in this environment or agree to something awful that might actually harm them. This is doubly a problem on mobile, where the limited screen size means that you can't see anything unless you click on the shiny banner button. > And as an user you should be annoyed and seek websites that respect you better. To me, real respect means not wasting my time doing busy performative theater. However people choose to deal with cookies is a problem that should be handled on the browser level, not with every website trying to write their own explanation and have some cookie management consent form.

speedgoose 5y ago
The law is not about cookie management but privacy and data protection. Also, what you describe sounds a bit like the “do not track” failure.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  That was a failure because it was unenforced. The cookie consent banners are a failure of lawmakers to enforce a protocol solution. It is really weird seeing people apologize for this clunky piece of legislation. "That's how it is supposed to be: a qualitative step down all across the internet." You know what people do to get around this trashfire? They install adblockers.
  - speedgoose 5y ago
    It was a failure also because of Microsoft and their choice to enable do not track by default in internet explorer. The legislation could be improved of course, but personally I think these consent forms are fine. And it tells me immediately which website “value my data“.