3 ms·

> "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

> "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.
    - Reason077 4y ago
      I’m not necessarily blaming the law, but saying that a new law (or change to the existing one) is needed to ban cookie pop-ups. It’s clear at this point that the problem is not going to go away without intervention. The industry isn’t going to fix itself. Also, it’s unfair to blame developers here. Devs don’t have some perverse desire to create annoying pop-ups. They’re being told to do it by management and legal teams, because that’s how the GDPR has been interpreted. > ”So it won't be a pop-up. It will be an interstitial page.” Ok, so you phrase it more generally: “it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained when a user visits a website”
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        > It’s clear at this point that the problem is not going to go away without intervention. The industry isn’t going to fix itself. Indeed. The main problem with GDPR is that enforcement has been slow. And that the industry has blamed its own behavior on the law. As the article shows, the tide is ever so slowly turning. > Ok, so you phrase it more generally: “it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained when a user visits a website” And how, in this case, do you ask for consent for legitimate reasons?

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.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    I’m not necessarily blaming the law, but saying that a new law (or change to the existing one) is needed to ban cookie pop-ups. It’s clear at this point that the problem is not going to go away without intervention. The industry isn’t going to fix itself. Also, it’s unfair to blame developers here. Devs don’t have some perverse desire to create annoying pop-ups. They’re being told to do it by management and legal teams, because that’s how the GDPR has been interpreted. > ”So it won't be a pop-up. It will be an interstitial page.” Ok, so you phrase it more generally: “it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained when a user visits a website”
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > It’s clear at this point that the problem is not going to go away without intervention. The industry isn’t going to fix itself. Indeed. The main problem with GDPR is that enforcement has been slow. And that the industry has blamed its own behavior on the law. As the article shows, the tide is ever so slowly turning. > Ok, so you phrase it more generally: “it is not permitted for consent for tracking cookies to be obtained when a user visits a website” And how, in this case, do you ask for consent for legitimate reasons?