> If a law makes you display a banner, it’s that law’s fault that the banner exists You're treating the surveillance activity as a constant. One could also jus

> If a law makes you display a banner, it’s that law’s fault that the banner exists You're treating the surveillance activity as a constant. One could also just stop surveilling, and then one wouldn't need to display a banner either. What you're saying is akin to saying that the law makes muggers wear masks to hide their faces. If you take the mugging activity as a given, and then compare how muggers act with the law to how they would act if robbery weren't illegal, then sure it's technically true. But unless you're making some larger constructive argument, then that characterization isn't particularly enlightening. > I’m not sure what you mean by imperfect enforcement ... courts that decided those banners are compliant Can you point me to these court decisions that say putting take-it-or-leave-it nag walls on websites suffices for obtaining consent to process personal information for non-necessary purposes? Because that would seem to run directly counter to the wording of the law.