5 ms·

I cannot believe we are still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful cookie approvals on Every. Single. Page. How did we let Europe do this to us?

by pbreit 4y ago

Sebb767 4y ago
> How did we let Europe do this to us? Blaming the EU for this feels pretty disingenuous. GDPR is definitely well-intentioned and in the interest of the consumers, the horribly annoying popups you get everywhere are just a form of malicious compliance from companies who want to track you anyway and make opting out as annoying as possible. Note that it's perfectly fine to have a page without a cookie popup. HN doesn't have one, for example. It's just not in the interest of companies to forgo user tracking.
- sneak 4y ago
  Laws that allow malicious compliance are bad laws. Intentions should not be a factor in evaluating whether laws are good laws or not. GDPR is not a good law. It hasn't even put a dent in the problem, and we are worse off for having it.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Obtaining "consent" via nagwalls and other dark patterns doesn't seem like its actually legal per the GDPR. Rather the enforcement is just so slow moving that it appears that way. So your complaint seems akin to saying that the laws against physical assault are pointless, because you were attacked and the police didn't find your assailant.
    - sneak 4y ago
      GDPR has had a huge cost. If it doesn't yield any benefit because it's not being enforced, then it is a bad law, because it has costs without benefit, unlike the prohibition on physical assault, which is "free".
      - kwhitefoot 4y ago
        How is it free? London in Victorian and worse in earlier times was a much less safe place than London now and a lot of the credit goes to having an organized police force that takes action to find and apprehend those who commit assault and battery. That police force cost money to create and costs money continuously to maintain.
        sneak 4y ago
        I didn't say police are free; I am not referring to enforcement. The assertion (by mindslight) is that GDPR is not adequately enforced anyway, so the comparison you make is somewhat apples to oranges. It costs society nothing to not punch people (complying with the laws against physical battery). It costs society a lot, however, in real economic terms, to comply with GDPR. Therefore, if GDPR is not being enforced, it is all cost for little/no benefit.
        mindslight 4y ago
        In this analogy, it actually does cost muggers quite a lot of revenue to not be able to punch people and take their wallets.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        It's being enforced. The problem is that the "free market that knows better" has collectively decided that they will go against it. And the enforcers are expected to work with the companies before fining everyone. However, it was enough to hand out some serious fines, and sites started falling in line https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come Funny how this works, right? And more fines are coming https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-data-advertising https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-dat...
jeroenhd 4y ago
Blaming the EU is exactly what the people forcing those popups onto you want. They don't need to track your information but they can make a quick buck selling you the latest far right conspiracy theory or fake medicine, but for that they need consent thanks to that pesky law that says they need to be careful. By making the popups as annoying and obnoxious as possible, the populace will blame those darn EU law makers. It's not unlike variable speed bumps installed into the road by crash injury lawyers intended to automatically slow down cars with airbags or seat belts to get everyone to stop taking normal precautions just so they can extract more profit. Legislative bodies are slow, but dark patterns are being investigated by DPAs already. It's only a matter of time before these dark patterns will become punishable offences as well, which should clear the way for a cleaner internet. Meanwhile, my solution is to not give websites that insist on badgering me with their manipulative consent forms any of my business. I can live without most Medium blogs.
garganzol 4y ago
Yep. Annoying as hell, this should have been a browser setting. Global/per site/etc. But we should not blame EU here, we should blame predatory advertising tactics.
- xigoi 4y ago
  There already was a browser setting for that — Do Not Track. And sites just ignored it.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >we should blame predatory advertising tactics Most sites that have this pop up aren't being predatory. The EU is fully to blame for ruining the internet.
  - oarsinsync 4y ago
    Every site that has these pop ups is literally doing so because they’re tracking you. Staking you. Surveilling you. They might be doing it on behalf of a third party, but they’re still doing it.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >Stalking you The website is not following "you" around, nor is it intimidating you. "You" are the one visiting the website. >Survieling you The website does not have cameras on "you" or have people following "you" around. The website compiles information that "you" have given it. If Alice tells Bob her name and Bob remembers it, Bob is not surveilling Alice.
      - oarsinsync 4y ago
        > The website compiles information that "you" have given it. If Alice tells Bob her name and Bob remembers it, Bob is not surveilling Alice. Bob also remembers Alice's height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, hair length, skin pigmentation, any spots, piercings, shoe size, shoes, clothes, jewellery, any other accessories, smells, gait, and fingerprints. Alice didn't intend to give Bob all this stuff, but it was all there for the taking, so Bob took it all. He took photos and videos and audio recordings of everything. Bob then sold a copy of all of this information on to everyone who paid for it. Bob does this to everyone that comes anywhere near his home. He also convinced a lot of his neighbours to install his equipment in their homes and businesses, so he captures all of this information about vast numbers of people, not just Alice. Fuck Bob. Charlie comes along and agrees, fuck Bob, and passes a rule to make Bob et al put up a sign saying they're doing all of this, and gain explicit consent for all of the unnecessary information they're 'compiling'. So Bob does it in the most painful way possible, and now some people are mad at Charlie, because Charlie's the one who made the rule. Even though Bob 'compiles information that "you" have given it', and Bob's in malicious compliance of the rules. Fuck Bob.
titzer 4y ago
Funny, we didn't have this problem 15 or 20 years ago. The banners are a reaction to the Ad Tumor's voracious appetite for tracking that we just got around to noticing.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
Why are you upset about web pages asking if they can track you, and not upset about the fact that web sites WANT to track you? I mean, ostensibly, it really is the latter that upsets you, but then I question why you're blaming Europe.
- manicennui 4y ago
  I think the problem is implementation. Every site does it slightly differently, so you have to read the overlay, usually after dismissing the overlays to sign up for their mailing list and live chat, and then decide what to do. At which point you are probably more likely to just accept and move on. It should probably work more like the permissions in iOS for tracking. I should be able to set it once, my browser should send a header to the site, and I shouldn't have to think about it. We all know why they won't do this: the majority of people would opt out.
- drusepth 4y ago
  Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the latter will inherently have a problem with the former when it's in excess (e.g. almost every site you go to).
dns_snek 4y ago
I can't believe we're still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful lung cancer warnings on cigarettes. How did we let government do this to us? ;)

I cannot believe we are still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful cookie approvals on Every. Single. Page. How did we let Europe do this to us?

by pbreit 4y ago

I cannot believe we are still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful cookie approvals on Every. Single. Page. How did we let Europe do this to us?

Sebb767 4y ago

> How did we let Europe do this to us? Blaming the EU for this feels pretty disingenuous. GDPR is definitely well-intentioned and in the interest of the consumers, the horribly annoying popups you get everywhere are just a form of malicious compliance from companies who want to track you anyway and make opting out as annoying as possible. Note that it's perfectly fine to have a page without a cookie popup. HN doesn't have one, for example. It's just not in the interest of companies to forgo user tracking.

sneak 4y ago
Laws that allow malicious compliance are bad laws. Intentions should not be a factor in evaluating whether laws are good laws or not. GDPR is not a good law. It hasn't even put a dent in the problem, and we are worse off for having it.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Obtaining "consent" via nagwalls and other dark patterns doesn't seem like its actually legal per the GDPR. Rather the enforcement is just so slow moving that it appears that way. So your complaint seems akin to saying that the laws against physical assault are pointless, because you were attacked and the police didn't find your assailant.
  - sneak 4y ago
    GDPR has had a huge cost. If it doesn't yield any benefit because it's not being enforced, then it is a bad law, because it has costs without benefit, unlike the prohibition on physical assault, which is "free".
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      How is it free? London in Victorian and worse in earlier times was a much less safe place than London now and a lot of the credit goes to having an organized police force that takes action to find and apprehend those who commit assault and battery. That police force cost money to create and costs money continuously to maintain.
      - sneak 4y ago
        I didn't say police are free; I am not referring to enforcement. The assertion (by mindslight) is that GDPR is not adequately enforced anyway, so the comparison you make is somewhat apples to oranges. It costs society nothing to not punch people (complying with the laws against physical battery). It costs society a lot, however, in real economic terms, to comply with GDPR. Therefore, if GDPR is not being enforced, it is all cost for little/no benefit.
        mindslight 4y ago
        In this analogy, it actually does cost muggers quite a lot of revenue to not be able to punch people and take their wallets.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      It's being enforced. The problem is that the "free market that knows better" has collectively decided that they will go against it. And the enforcers are expected to work with the companies before fining everyone. However, it was enough to hand out some serious fines, and sites started falling in line https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come Funny how this works, right? And more fines are coming https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-data-advertising https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-dat...

jeroenhd 4y ago

Blaming the EU is exactly what the people forcing those popups onto you want. They don't need to track your information but they can make a quick buck selling you the latest far right conspiracy theory or fake medicine, but for that they need consent thanks to that pesky law that says they need to be careful. By making the popups as annoying and obnoxious as possible, the populace will blame those darn EU law makers. It's not unlike variable speed bumps installed into the road by crash injury lawyers intended to automatically slow down cars with airbags or seat belts to get everyone to stop taking normal precautions just so they can extract more profit. Legislative bodies are slow, but dark patterns are being investigated by DPAs already. It's only a matter of time before these dark patterns will become punishable offences as well, which should clear the way for a cleaner internet. Meanwhile, my solution is to not give websites that insist on badgering me with their manipulative consent forms any of my business. I can live without most Medium blogs.

garganzol 4y ago

Yep. Annoying as hell, this should have been a browser setting. Global/per site/etc. But we should not blame EU here, we should blame predatory advertising tactics.

xigoi 4y ago
There already was a browser setting for that — Do Not Track. And sites just ignored it.
charcircuit 4y ago
>we should blame predatory advertising tactics Most sites that have this pop up aren't being predatory. The EU is fully to blame for ruining the internet.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  Every site that has these pop ups is literally doing so because they’re tracking you. Staking you. Surveilling you. They might be doing it on behalf of a third party, but they’re still doing it.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >Stalking you The website is not following "you" around, nor is it intimidating you. "You" are the one visiting the website. >Survieling you The website does not have cameras on "you" or have people following "you" around. The website compiles information that "you" have given it. If Alice tells Bob her name and Bob remembers it, Bob is not surveilling Alice.
    - oarsinsync 4y ago
      > The website compiles information that "you" have given it. If Alice tells Bob her name and Bob remembers it, Bob is not surveilling Alice. Bob also remembers Alice's height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, hair length, skin pigmentation, any spots, piercings, shoe size, shoes, clothes, jewellery, any other accessories, smells, gait, and fingerprints. Alice didn't intend to give Bob all this stuff, but it was all there for the taking, so Bob took it all. He took photos and videos and audio recordings of everything. Bob then sold a copy of all of this information on to everyone who paid for it. Bob does this to everyone that comes anywhere near his home. He also convinced a lot of his neighbours to install his equipment in their homes and businesses, so he captures all of this information about vast numbers of people, not just Alice. Fuck Bob. Charlie comes along and agrees, fuck Bob, and passes a rule to make Bob et al put up a sign saying they're doing all of this, and gain explicit consent for all of the unnecessary information they're 'compiling'. So Bob does it in the most painful way possible, and now some people are mad at Charlie, because Charlie's the one who made the rule. Even though Bob 'compiles information that "you" have given it', and Bob's in malicious compliance of the rules. Fuck Bob.

titzer 4y ago

Funny, we didn't have this problem 15 or 20 years ago. The banners are a reaction to the Ad Tumor's voracious appetite for tracking that we just got around to noticing.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

Why are you upset about web pages asking if they can track you, and not upset about the fact that web sites WANT to track you? I mean, ostensibly, it really is the latter that upsets you, but then I question why you're blaming Europe.

manicennui 4y ago
I think the problem is implementation. Every site does it slightly differently, so you have to read the overlay, usually after dismissing the overlays to sign up for their mailing list and live chat, and then decide what to do. At which point you are probably more likely to just accept and move on. It should probably work more like the permissions in iOS for tracking. I should be able to set it once, my browser should send a header to the site, and I shouldn't have to think about it. We all know why they won't do this: the majority of people would opt out.
drusepth 4y ago
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the latter will inherently have a problem with the former when it's in excess (e.g. almost every site you go to).

dns_snek 4y ago

I can't believe we're still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful lung cancer warnings on cigarettes. How did we let government do this to us? ;)