4 ms·

No legal measure prevents your site from seeing the Do Not Track header and automatically rejecting cookies/tracking. I've only seen a handful of sites do this

No legal measure prevents your site from seeing the Do Not Track header and automatically rejecting cookies/tracking. I've only seen a handful of sites do this. Developers inclined to respect Do Not Track seem less likely to add tracking anyway, in which case you also don't need the banner.

phendrenad2 4y ago
There's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway. Making the user click a button was always a dumb solution.
- mindslight 4y ago
  There's also "nothing" stopping you from taking whatever you want from the grocery store without paying. Sure, shady surveillance-based businesses can still pilfer your information and sell it to illegitimate businesses regardless of the legality. But it being illegal will stop the vast majority of wanting-to-be-legitimate businesses from collecting it, and prevent the largest group of threat actors (insurance/credit/etc) from using it.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    What does this have to do with DNT vs cookie consent popups?
    - mindslight 4y ago
      It doesn't have to do with the distinction between DNT and cookie nags. I was responding to this: "There's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway". You seemed to be implying that since a website can technically ignore a user's (lack of) consent regardless, that the popups are unnecessary. But legally, the concept of consent is very significant. The popup mechanism itself isn't designed for you. I do agree that honest businesses don't need "consent" nag walls, as nobody actually wants their personal information datamined as a feature. But the actual dynamic is that these businesses are trying to preserve the status quo of user surveillance by obtaining fig-leaf consent. And the "best" way to do this (from their perspective) is an obtrusive nag wall that makes it easier to submit rather than reject (whether by accident or through attrition). So nag walls are just a similar user-hostile solution just like surveillance based advertising itself. And the main way the dynamic of malicious compliance will go away is further enforcement, although I fully support technical solutions that delete nag walls as well.
- Moldoteck 4y ago
  In fact yes. But if some dev is treated badly by that website and they know about this, they can direct legislators to that site saying it's illegal. And in this case that website has problems
  - aziaziazi 4y ago
    > that website has problems Depends on what legislation the website is hosted and/or the company is ? Not a layer, just trying to learn.
    - Moldoteck 4y ago
      maybe, but there are different ways to deal with infractions. Fines and blocking are among the first, but I'm sure govs will do everything possible to get some money in some way if they can
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    But does that site have more problems than if they were ignoring the DNT bit? I'mn not sure how we got so far off-track, but that was how this discussion chain started.

phendrenad2 4y ago

There's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway. Making the user click a button was always a dumb solution.

mindslight 4y ago
There's also "nothing" stopping you from taking whatever you want from the grocery store without paying. Sure, shady surveillance-based businesses can still pilfer your information and sell it to illegitimate businesses regardless of the legality. But it being illegal will stop the vast majority of wanting-to-be-legitimate businesses from collecting it, and prevent the largest group of threat actors (insurance/credit/etc) from using it.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  What does this have to do with DNT vs cookie consent popups?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    It doesn't have to do with the distinction between DNT and cookie nags. I was responding to this: "There's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway". You seemed to be implying that since a website can technically ignore a user's (lack of) consent regardless, that the popups are unnecessary. But legally, the concept of consent is very significant. The popup mechanism itself isn't designed for you. I do agree that honest businesses don't need "consent" nag walls, as nobody actually wants their personal information datamined as a feature. But the actual dynamic is that these businesses are trying to preserve the status quo of user surveillance by obtaining fig-leaf consent. And the "best" way to do this (from their perspective) is an obtrusive nag wall that makes it easier to submit rather than reject (whether by accident or through attrition). So nag walls are just a similar user-hostile solution just like surveillance based advertising itself. And the main way the dynamic of malicious compliance will go away is further enforcement, although I fully support technical solutions that delete nag walls as well.
Moldoteck 4y ago
In fact yes. But if some dev is treated badly by that website and they know about this, they can direct legislators to that site saying it's illegal. And in this case that website has problems
- aziaziazi 4y ago
  > that website has problems Depends on what legislation the website is hosted and/or the company is ? Not a layer, just trying to learn.
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    maybe, but there are different ways to deal with infractions. Fines and blocking are among the first, but I'm sure govs will do everything possible to get some money in some way if they can
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  But does that site have more problems than if they were ignoring the DNT bit? I'mn not sure how we got so far off-track, but that was how this discussion chain started.