4 ms·
True. Everyone (myself included) calls this a "cookie popup", but it's about tracking. "Do not track" was a better name, but otherwise a poor implementation. I
by drdaeman 5y ago
True. Everyone (myself included) calls this a "cookie popup", but it's about tracking. "Do not track" was a better name, but otherwise a poor implementation.
I wondered why not make such tracking (or "cookie") prompts a part of webbrowser UI, standardized and sure to be compliant. With enforcement of what browser can enforce (disabling persistent storage), and leaving the rest (e.g. disabling IP-address based tracking) to the website.
- sofixa 5y agoOne potential reason is responsibility - if the browser just doesn't implement the required UI for that, who would be at fault? Would the browser vendor be fined, and for how much? Now it's up to those doing the tracking to tell exactly what they collect and who they share it with, and ask for permission. If they screw it up, they get fined proportionately.
- muhehe 5y agoMake it opt-in and it's solved. Server doesn't receive "yes you can" header because browser didn't implement it? Cool, no tracking. Or if there is tracking, website is at fault.
- sofixa 5y agoBut it's not "opt in to tracking", it's "do you accept that we record X, Y, Z for A, B, C and share it with our partners G, F, K?". It's not a yes/no.
- muhehe 5y agoPretty much the same thing. You don't send "I agree with X on A", you aren't supposed to get X on A tracking.
- sofixa 5y agoOnly the same thing if you do not agree. You cannot consent to any tracking, the EU wants it to be explicit what you consent to ( data collected and who is it shared with).
- layer8 5y agoThe legislation doesn’t want to require specific technical implementations. They want to specify the legal requirements as independent as possible from whatever underlying technical mechanisms are used. That makes it more future-proof and at the same time also simpler than having to come up with a technical standard.