3 ms·

> Why not? This is exactly what needs to happen. No, it's not. Because there are actual legitimate reasons for organisations and businesses to ask for user's c

> Why not? This is exactly what needs to happen. No, it's not. Because there are actual legitimate reasons for organisations and businesses to ask for user's consent. > Either that, or allow cookie consent You keep missing the simple fact that GDPR is not about cookie consents. How many times do I have to repeat this? > not with a bespoke, intrusive UI on every. single. damn. website. Again. In as simple terms as I possibly can: - GDPR is about user data everywhere, not just in the browsers - GDPR does not mandate cookie pop ups. This is entirely the work of a greedy industry - GDPR cannot ban asking for user consent. Because that is a) over-reaching, and b) makes legitimate cases for asking for user consent illegal - And again. GDPR is not about browsers. GDPR is not about websites. GDPR is not about cookies. GDPR is not about cookie popups Note: if websites actually respected the law and user privacy, you wouldn't even see those popups. But sure. Tell me how it's the law that is responsible for them.

Reason077 4y ago
> "You keep missing the simple fact that GDPR is not about cookie consents. How many times do I have to repeat this?" Fine. That's great: if GDPR is not about cookie consents then let's get rid of the damned pop-ups! If that means no more tracking cookies, then so be it. That's a good thing! This is no different to the behaviour when a user clicks "reject non essential cookies" and also no different to what Apple already did with apps that accessed advertising tracking IDs on iOS. Facebook complained and lost a little money, but the world didn't end and the sky didn't fall. (iOS users can still choose to let apps track, but that UI is provided by the OS, not the app, and can be set globally). > "makes legitimate cases for asking for user consent illegal" I'm not at all suggesting that consent shouldn't still be asked for in situations where it's legitimate, like storing actual user personal data that they provide when signing up for an account, for example. But simply visiting a website should not be considered a legitimate reason to obtain or store a user's data. Therefore there is no reason to ask for consent, and the practice should be banned.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > I'm not suggesting that consent shouldn't still be asked for in cases where it's legitimate, like storing actual user personal data that they provide when signing up for an account, for example. Guess what. In this case the you don't have to ask for user consent. Because this data is strictly essential to site functionality. > But simply visiting a website should not be considered a legitimate reason to obtain or store a user's data. Guess what. It's exactly what GDPR is saying.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    > "Guess what. It's exactly what GDPR is saying." But that is not how it is being interpreted in practice. Clearly we just need to go one step further and explicitly say "it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained by the use of a pop-up UI that appears when a user visits a website". Problem solved.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > But that is not how it is being interpreted in practice. No. In practice it's actually being interpreted correctly. What is being willfully misinterpreted is how easily a user can opt-out. Because the industry wants to remain exactly the same: it wants to siphon user data and sell it en masse. The existing pop ups that use dark patterns to make the user click "accept" are already illegal. > it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained by the use of a pop-up UI that appears when a user visits a website So it won't be a pop-up. It will be an interstitial page. You keep focusing in the entirely wrong issue and blaming the law for it. So, we've banned pop ups. Now what? Now every time you visit a web site, you get a full page asking for your consent. Then you'll blame the law and ask to ban interstitials. Ok. We'll ban interstitials. Now it will be banners. Or every second paragraph in text. Videos. Images. Where the law just says: do not collect user data without user's consent, and the user isn't obliged to give you that consent. And the industry replies: screw this, we demand this data and make users' life hell for it. Somehow gullible devs are now fully convinced that the law requires all this.
      - 4y ago

Reason077 4y ago

> "You keep missing the simple fact that GDPR is not about cookie consents. How many times do I have to repeat this?" Fine. That's great: if GDPR is not about cookie consents then let's get rid of the damned pop-ups! If that means no more tracking cookies, then so be it. That's a good thing! This is no different to the behaviour when a user clicks "reject non essential cookies" and also no different to what Apple already did with apps that accessed advertising tracking IDs on iOS. Facebook complained and lost a little money, but the world didn't end and the sky didn't fall. (iOS users can still choose to let apps track, but that UI is provided by the OS, not the app, and can be set globally). > "makes legitimate cases for asking for user consent illegal" I'm not at all suggesting that consent shouldn't still be asked for in situations where it's legitimate, like storing actual user personal data that they provide when signing up for an account, for example. But simply visiting a website should not be considered a legitimate reason to obtain or store a user's data. Therefore there is no reason to ask for consent, and the practice should be banned.

dmitriid 4y ago
> I'm not suggesting that consent shouldn't still be asked for in cases where it's legitimate, like storing actual user personal data that they provide when signing up for an account, for example. Guess what. In this case the you don't have to ask for user consent. Because this data is strictly essential to site functionality. > But simply visiting a website should not be considered a legitimate reason to obtain or store a user's data. Guess what. It's exactly what GDPR is saying.
- Reason077 4y ago
  > "Guess what. It's exactly what GDPR is saying." But that is not how it is being interpreted in practice. Clearly we just need to go one step further and explicitly say "it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained by the use of a pop-up UI that appears when a user visits a website". Problem solved.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > But that is not how it is being interpreted in practice. No. In practice it's actually being interpreted correctly. What is being willfully misinterpreted is how easily a user can opt-out. Because the industry wants to remain exactly the same: it wants to siphon user data and sell it en masse. The existing pop ups that use dark patterns to make the user click "accept" are already illegal. > it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained by the use of a pop-up UI that appears when a user visits a website So it won't be a pop-up. It will be an interstitial page. You keep focusing in the entirely wrong issue and blaming the law for it. So, we've banned pop ups. Now what? Now every time you visit a web site, you get a full page asking for your consent. Then you'll blame the law and ask to ban interstitials. Ok. We'll ban interstitials. Now it will be banners. Or every second paragraph in text. Videos. Images. Where the law just says: do not collect user data without user's consent, and the user isn't obliged to give you that consent. And the industry replies: screw this, we demand this data and make users' life hell for it. Somehow gullible devs are now fully convinced that the law requires all this.
    - 4y ago