3 ms·

I think the cookie consent was great in intention, but naively executed/enforced by the EU. I believe there must be a strong push back on those banners from br

I think the cookie consent was great in intention, but naively executed/enforced by the EU. I believe there must be a strong push back on those banners from browser vendors to force the EU to reconsider the current law and modify it. IMHO it would be much better if they'd revise the current law to require browser vendors to have a global cookie setting (accept functional, marketing, etc.) and then websites having to obey to a user's preference based on their browser setting.

secondcoming 4y ago
There used be the option of using a global cookie but website no used it. It was then deprecated. See the field 'IsServiceSpecific' in [0] [0] https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/GDPR-Transparency-and-Consent-Framework/blob/master/TCFv2/IAB%20Tech%20Lab%20-%20Consent%20string%20and%20vendor%20list%20formats%20v2.md https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/GDPR-Transpa...
hnbad 4y ago
There's nothing in any of the relevant EU laws forcing websites to have consent banners. They could simply handle consent like mobile apps are supposed to handle permissions (i.e. prompt once for a single purpose when it becomes relevant for a user interaction). But they want to shovel a ton of trackers and tracking ads and analytics and other garbage into every page load, so they need to obtain consent before those can be loaded and then they try to be clever (read: illegal) and trick you into giving them a blank check by making it harder to opt out and continue than to opt in to everything and give up. There's also nothing in the law saying the cookie banner has to be a modal dialog. The same sites happily went for actual "banners" rather than popups when the first EU cookie law was passed and only required notice rather than consent. They only went for modal popups because this forces users to make a choice before they can access the content. Ironically, if a data protection agency were particularly spicy that day, it could be argued that putting a site behind a modal consent popup rather than defaulting to opt-out and merely informing the user about other options violates the GDPR's requirement not to make the use of a website conditional to unrelated data processing because the popup is intended as a form of light coersion.
- dustedcodes 4y ago
  > There's nothing in any of the relevant EU laws... Sure, my pet peeve is not that THERE IS something in EU law that makes these banners so annoying. My issue is that THERE ISN'T anything in the EU law that specifically prescribes HOW it should be handled so that it's not such an absolute fecking annoyance. As I said, I think they should revise the law so that it specifically states that the cookie options must be a browser option and websites MUST respect that preference, and that the browser preference trumps anything else which a user might have consented elsewhere, rendering attempts to workaround it as useless.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> force the EU to reconsider the current law and modify it. That's like bank-robbers demanding that the law against armed robbery needs to be modified. I like the law. I don't like the bank-robbers throwing up banners in the hope that the blame will stick to GDPR.

secondcoming 4y ago

There used be the option of using a global cookie but website no used it. It was then deprecated. See the field 'IsServiceSpecific' in [0] [0] https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/GDPR-Transparency-and-Consent-Framework/blob/master/TCFv2/IAB%20Tech%20Lab%20-%20Consent%20string%20and%20vendor%20list%20formats%20v2.md https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/GDPR-Transpa...

hnbad 4y ago

There's nothing in any of the relevant EU laws forcing websites to have consent banners. They could simply handle consent like mobile apps are supposed to handle permissions (i.e. prompt once for a single purpose when it becomes relevant for a user interaction). But they want to shovel a ton of trackers and tracking ads and analytics and other garbage into every page load, so they need to obtain consent before those can be loaded and then they try to be clever (read: illegal) and trick you into giving them a blank check by making it harder to opt out and continue than to opt in to everything and give up. There's also nothing in the law saying the cookie banner has to be a modal dialog. The same sites happily went for actual "banners" rather than popups when the first EU cookie law was passed and only required notice rather than consent. They only went for modal popups because this forces users to make a choice before they can access the content. Ironically, if a data protection agency were particularly spicy that day, it could be argued that putting a site behind a modal consent popup rather than defaulting to opt-out and merely informing the user about other options violates the GDPR's requirement not to make the use of a website conditional to unrelated data processing because the popup is intended as a form of light coersion.

dustedcodes 4y ago
> There's nothing in any of the relevant EU laws... Sure, my pet peeve is not that THERE IS something in EU law that makes these banners so annoying. My issue is that THERE ISN'T anything in the EU law that specifically prescribes HOW it should be handled so that it's not such an absolute fecking annoyance. As I said, I think they should revise the law so that it specifically states that the cookie options must be a browser option and websites MUST respect that preference, and that the browser preference trumps anything else which a user might have consented elsewhere, rendering attempts to workaround it as useless.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> force the EU to reconsider the current law and modify it. That's like bank-robbers demanding that the law against armed robbery needs to be modified. I like the law. I don't like the bank-robbers throwing up banners in the hope that the blame will stick to GDPR.