4 ms·

People are suggesting mechanical fixes, but ignoring the real issue: The people who write those cookie popups, serve the ads, prompt you to download the app on

People are suggesting mechanical fixes, but ignoring the real issue: The people who write those cookie popups, serve the ads, prompt you to download the app on every page load? Those people are in these comments section, and should feel like shit. If the contribution of your life is shitting up our greatest creation via cookie banners, popups, autoplaying videos etc? You should feel like shit. Go do something useful.

jitl 3y ago
Cookie banners are required by law unfortunately.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  A 100% no. Cookie banners are only required if you do unnecessary tracking of and spying on your visitors. A cookie banner is a sure sign of the incompetence of the organization behind any website.
  - jitl 3y ago
    > A cookie banner is a sure sign of the incompetence I disagree. Per-device staged feature rollout & performance monitoring requires a "functional" cookie, which still needs a consent banner. Using staged rollouts lets us catch issues we couldn't anticipate during internal testing, like browser bugs for specific Android versions on specific vendors, without exposing every device to that kind of bug at once. If you consider that invasive, then you can use the cookie banner to opt out (as required by law), but it's not a sign of organization incompetence.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      You just described legitimate interest. You can put that in a document, not in the banner. IANAL
      - jitl 3y ago
        Device ID cookies for analytics like error reporting or a non-essential function like feature gates rollout are not strictly necessary for the user to complete their goal, and so need consent under the UK’s version of the GDPR. You also need user consent if you’re re-using an essential cookie like a session token for non-essential purposes like analytics or feature delivery. See https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guide-to-pecr/guidance-on-the-use-of-cookies-and-similar-technologies/what-are-the-rules-on-cookies-and-similar-technologies/#rules7 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-pr... section titled “What is the ‘strictly necessary’ exemption” To my knowledge, the UK’s cookie law is the most restrictive one and drives a lot of the recent increase in these consent banners
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        All of this has to be proven in court, which is really complex, but rolling out features seems definitely a legitimate interest of your business, especially if it can break your software. It sounds like the same reason you are allowed to log the user IP, to prevent malicious attackers
        jitl 3y ago
        It seems like most websites, including the one I work on, disagree with your assessment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        No, all websites show a banner on purpose to ensure users clicks on "allow all", or ensure the user gets the most annoyed when clicking on reject all by asking it again, or when click on "reject all" consider ADVERTISING as legitimate interest (apparently a loophole has been found). Given that, I doubt this is certain in any way. Unfortunately without a court (not even just a lawyer), it's really hard to provide a definitive answer

jitl 3y ago

Cookie banners are required by law unfortunately.

carlosjobim 3y ago
A 100% no. Cookie banners are only required if you do unnecessary tracking of and spying on your visitors. A cookie banner is a sure sign of the incompetence of the organization behind any website.
- jitl 3y ago
  > A cookie banner is a sure sign of the incompetence I disagree. Per-device staged feature rollout & performance monitoring requires a "functional" cookie, which still needs a consent banner. Using staged rollouts lets us catch issues we couldn't anticipate during internal testing, like browser bugs for specific Android versions on specific vendors, without exposing every device to that kind of bug at once. If you consider that invasive, then you can use the cookie banner to opt out (as required by law), but it's not a sign of organization incompetence.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    You just described legitimate interest. You can put that in a document, not in the banner. IANAL
    - jitl 3y ago
      Device ID cookies for analytics like error reporting or a non-essential function like feature gates rollout are not strictly necessary for the user to complete their goal, and so need consent under the UK’s version of the GDPR. You also need user consent if you’re re-using an essential cookie like a session token for non-essential purposes like analytics or feature delivery. See https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/guide-to-pecr/guidance-on-the-use-of-cookies-and-similar-technologies/what-are-the-rules-on-cookies-and-similar-technologies/#rules7 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-pr... section titled “What is the ‘strictly necessary’ exemption” To my knowledge, the UK’s cookie law is the most restrictive one and drives a lot of the recent increase in these consent banners
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        All of this has to be proven in court, which is really complex, but rolling out features seems definitely a legitimate interest of your business, especially if it can break your software. It sounds like the same reason you are allowed to log the user IP, to prevent malicious attackers
        jitl 3y ago
        It seems like most websites, including the one I work on, disagree with your assessment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        No, all websites show a banner on purpose to ensure users clicks on "allow all", or ensure the user gets the most annoyed when clicking on reject all by asking it again, or when click on "reject all" consider ADVERTISING as legitimate interest (apparently a loophole has been found). Given that, I doubt this is certain in any way. Unfortunately without a court (not even just a lawyer), it's really hard to provide a definitive answer