4 ms·

Websites are free to use it. It is 100% compliant with the GDPR.

by whstl 4y ago

robryk 4y ago
But they're not required to obey it, so they ignore it, presumably because they expect that more people will agree if they are annoyed with a dialog by each website they visit.
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Which in my case is entirely true.
- pipo234 4y ago
  How about this: I've configured Firefox with DNT and frequently, when I land on a site that blocks my view with a modal cookie popup, I just push the back button and try another link. While my browsing behaviour might be less typical than just pressing "OK", I'm sure it's a statistic they are keeping an eye on. So while the dark pattern approach has merits to sites that want to track you, they must also be aware this is a balance. And a percentage of users will generally prefer to go to sites that leave them alone. That is: the cookie dialogue never widens the funnel.
  - csunbird 4y ago
    But, this behavior does not protect your privacy at all, because those websites already put tracking information in your cookies claiming that they fall into “Legitimate Interest”. You need to interact with the modal and claw your way into the hidden settings where you can disable “Legitimate Interest” toggles.
    - whstl 4y ago
      You are correct, but just some additional information: Those cookie banners are illegal under GDPR, btw. Real "Legitimate Interest" does not even require consent, and you can't claim that tracking or marketing is "legitimate interest". An example of legitimate interest is keeping your address in the records after a purchase, or storing a receipt for accounting reasons.
- joking 4y ago
  and they expectation is correct, I click whatever green button that i'm presented and expect that my combination of private browser sessions, different profilers and adblock extensions messes them enough. It sucks, I know, but the quantity of time people has loss with those banners, both on the client side and both on the developer side (even If is paid work that i did, I would have preferred to do anything more valuable) is enormous, and the culprits responsable of this should be taken to the courts, if not presented with a cumputer and sentenced to pass the rest of their lives clicking consent banners. I suppose that is a matter that strikes a chord with me.
karaterobot 4y ago
Compliant with GDPR doesn't seem to mean much. The comment I'm leaving now is compliant with GDPR. The question is, does it fulfill a cookie-using website's requirements under GDPR without additional UI? Wikipedia at least says it does not ("DNT is not widely adopted by the industry, with companies citing the lack of legal mandates for its use") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
- orangeoxidation 4y ago
  > The question is, does it fulfill a cookie-using website's requirements under GDPR without additional UI It cannot. That's the whole point of the GDPR. It forbids tracking without informed, explicit user consent. Users cannot be informed or agree with the header setting. Sites can, of course, not track users, or not track users who set do not track. They don't want to, that's why they try to annoy and/or mislead anyone into agreeing with their horrible banners. (Using Cookies for site settings or even logins can be done without explicit consent and without banners)
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    The problem is that regulators were influenced by industry then. The proper regulation would have required that the default state be that users are shown no consent banners without explicit action and also not tracked.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      GDPR. Does not. Mandate. Browser. Or website. Cookies. Banners. Or UIs. In it's simplest form it says: if you want to collect more data than is required, you have to ask users for consent. This applies in equal measure to sites, banks, grocery stores, shopping malls, shit processing plants, nuclear reactors etc.
      - alkonaut 4y ago
        I'm. Fully. Aware. But there is a need for clarification here for the most often encountered consent case: web sites. Basically the regulation could say: you must have consent to collect data, but you must ALSO observe specific standardized method X of of blanket disallowing all consent in specific contexts. For example, "if do-not-track is used in a web browser, then the user should not be shown a consent dialog but instead provided the service as if they had rejected the consent dialog". I realize that regulators (for good reason!) are very reluctant to specify specific technologies. It's not their home turf, and it's likely to be quickly outdated. But I'm ready to accept that this would be a time when there is a good reason to make an exception to that rule.
jeroenhd 4y ago
I was pleasantly suprised to see websites like medium.com disable their embeds and seemingly their tracking scripts when you have DNT enabled. Most websites that use ads or (opt-out) tracking choose to ignore the header because there's no technical or legal reason why they can't.

Websites are free to use it. It is 100% compliant with the GDPR.

by whstl 4y ago

Websites are free to use it. It is 100% compliant with the GDPR.

But they're not required to obey it, so they ignore it, presumably because they expect that more people will agree if they are annoyed with a dialog by each website they visit.

KyeRussell 4y ago
Which in my case is entirely true.
pipo234 4y ago
How about this: I've configured Firefox with DNT and frequently, when I land on a site that blocks my view with a modal cookie popup, I just push the back button and try another link. While my browsing behaviour might be less typical than just pressing "OK", I'm sure it's a statistic they are keeping an eye on. So while the dark pattern approach has merits to sites that want to track you, they must also be aware this is a balance. And a percentage of users will generally prefer to go to sites that leave them alone. That is: the cookie dialogue never widens the funnel.
- csunbird 4y ago
  But, this behavior does not protect your privacy at all, because those websites already put tracking information in your cookies claiming that they fall into “Legitimate Interest”. You need to interact with the modal and claw your way into the hidden settings where you can disable “Legitimate Interest” toggles.
  - whstl 4y ago
    You are correct, but just some additional information: Those cookie banners are illegal under GDPR, btw. Real "Legitimate Interest" does not even require consent, and you can't claim that tracking or marketing is "legitimate interest". An example of legitimate interest is keeping your address in the records after a purchase, or storing a receipt for accounting reasons.
joking 4y ago
and they expectation is correct, I click whatever green button that i'm presented and expect that my combination of private browser sessions, different profilers and adblock extensions messes them enough. It sucks, I know, but the quantity of time people has loss with those banners, both on the client side and both on the developer side (even If is paid work that i did, I would have preferred to do anything more valuable) is enormous, and the culprits responsable of this should be taken to the courts, if not presented with a cumputer and sentenced to pass the rest of their lives clicking consent banners. I suppose that is a matter that strikes a chord with me.

karaterobot 4y ago

Compliant with GDPR doesn't seem to mean much. The comment I'm leaving now is compliant with GDPR. The question is, does it fulfill a cookie-using website's requirements under GDPR without additional UI? Wikipedia at least says it does not ("DNT is not widely adopted by the industry, with companies citing the lack of legal mandates for its use") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

orangeoxidation 4y ago
> The question is, does it fulfill a cookie-using website's requirements under GDPR without additional UI It cannot. That's the whole point of the GDPR. It forbids tracking without informed, explicit user consent. Users cannot be informed or agree with the header setting. Sites can, of course, not track users, or not track users who set do not track. They don't want to, that's why they try to annoy and/or mislead anyone into agreeing with their horrible banners. (Using Cookies for site settings or even logins can be done without explicit consent and without banners)
- alkonaut 4y ago
  The problem is that regulators were influenced by industry then. The proper regulation would have required that the default state be that users are shown no consent banners without explicit action and also not tracked.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    GDPR. Does not. Mandate. Browser. Or website. Cookies. Banners. Or UIs. In it's simplest form it says: if you want to collect more data than is required, you have to ask users for consent. This applies in equal measure to sites, banks, grocery stores, shopping malls, shit processing plants, nuclear reactors etc.
    - alkonaut 4y ago
      I'm. Fully. Aware. But there is a need for clarification here for the most often encountered consent case: web sites. Basically the regulation could say: you must have consent to collect data, but you must ALSO observe specific standardized method X of of blanket disallowing all consent in specific contexts. For example, "if do-not-track is used in a web browser, then the user should not be shown a consent dialog but instead provided the service as if they had rejected the consent dialog". I realize that regulators (for good reason!) are very reluctant to specify specific technologies. It's not their home turf, and it's likely to be quickly outdated. But I'm ready to accept that this would be a time when there is a good reason to make an exception to that rule.

jeroenhd 4y ago

I was pleasantly suprised to see websites like medium.com disable their embeds and seemingly their tracking scripts when you have DNT enabled. Most websites that use ads or (opt-out) tracking choose to ignore the header because there's no technical or legal reason why they can't.