4 ms·

I'd love if this became a EU-wide law. If you send the DNT header, then you can't get cookie consent alerts since you already do not consent being tracked.

nvm0n2 3y ago
Alternative reading: if mechanized expression of consent is now possible, then if you send a different header "Tracking-OK: True" all the cookie consent banners should now disappear. It could be a great thing. 99%+ of all people would quickly learn to opt in to tracking to get rid of the annoying popups.
- la_oveja 3y ago
  Or to apt out.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  That's an impossible reading, tracking requires informed consent. Blanket "do whatever" consent can never be informed. Besides, if you gave users a free choice, as intended by the law, no one would consent to it.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  Why sacrifice privacy? I have exactly zero popups / cookie banners, and I'm in France and a French citizen (and a GPDR supported). My browser and extensions rejects all requests for consent to be tracked automatically. We can easily get Web browsers to do that for everyone (it takes about one minute to set up manually) so that everyone could have privacy while having a seamless browsing experience. This is easily doable with the current GDPR. Now, why would you or anyone prefer to consent to tracking instead?
  - mousetree 3y ago
    What browser and extensions do you recommend?
    - nicbou 3y ago
      uBlock Origin has many "Annoyances" filter lists. They work really well on desktop and on Android. I pretty much forget that cookie banners exist.
    - YoshiRulz 3y ago
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcar... works fairly well
      - matrss 3y ago
        That is just an automatic opt-in to tracking, the opposite of what was asked for.
        extraduder_ire 3y ago
        I use consent-o-matic for this purpose: https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic You can actually configure each toggle yourself.
        matrss 3y ago
        I've used that in the past. Unfortunately, it had some issues; some sites completely broke when consent-o-matic did its thing (e.g. page remained greyed-out and/or scrolling was broken from the cookie popup). Not their fault really and I respect the effort, but it made it hard to keep it enabled all the time. Maybe I should try it out again, it has been a while...
        rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
        https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies works much better, in my experience.
        rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    By modifying the site that way you're violating its ToS and can simply be denied service, as you are neither accepting or denying the request (you can't deny it because you haven't read it). Yeah you can claim otherwise and other people are free to just deny you service. EU still doesn't have access to Threads, right? Twitter is thinking of turning off the EU as well. That attitude is why. Trade is a two way street and constantly harassing the providers is a good way to find yourself without any services to harass anymore.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Consent is not a request where the consumer has to make a decision to accept or deny, in EU consent is an opt-in activity. So there is a clear default state - doing nothing is the same thing as refusing a request, and refusing to even read any requests is a perfectly legitimate way of doing nothing. There is no legal or moral reason to afford the request any attention or consideration, if you're ignoring it, then you're not opting in, and the site has very clear explicit information that it doesn't have your consent.
- extraduder_ire 3y ago
  The DNT header already has a setting for that: "DNT: 0" (as well as '1', and 'unset') For one reason or another, the header has been deprecated for years now. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN...
layer8 3y ago
I don’t think there’s anything that would disallow asking the user questions. It’s rather that even if the user gives consent through a web UI, the DNT header would still continue to be sent, thus presumably immediately revoking the consent given.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 3y ago
  I doubt that a court or regulator would see that as a revocation of consent when the consent was explicitly given by the user. DNT is a global so its continuing to be sent to the site doesn't really provide any evidence that the user means to revoke the consent that they just gave. All it really indicates is that the user doesn't want to turn off DNT globally.

nvm0n2 3y ago

Alternative reading: if mechanized expression of consent is now possible, then if you send a different header "Tracking-OK: True" all the cookie consent banners should now disappear. It could be a great thing. 99%+ of all people would quickly learn to opt in to tracking to get rid of the annoying popups.

la_oveja 3y ago
Or to apt out.
dns_snek 3y ago
That's an impossible reading, tracking requires informed consent. Blanket "do whatever" consent can never be informed. Besides, if you gave users a free choice, as intended by the law, no one would consent to it.
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
Why sacrifice privacy? I have exactly zero popups / cookie banners, and I'm in France and a French citizen (and a GPDR supported). My browser and extensions rejects all requests for consent to be tracked automatically. We can easily get Web browsers to do that for everyone (it takes about one minute to set up manually) so that everyone could have privacy while having a seamless browsing experience. This is easily doable with the current GDPR. Now, why would you or anyone prefer to consent to tracking instead?
- mousetree 3y ago
  What browser and extensions do you recommend?
  - nicbou 3y ago
    uBlock Origin has many "Annoyances" filter lists. They work really well on desktop and on Android. I pretty much forget that cookie banners exist.
  - YoshiRulz 3y ago
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcar... works fairly well
    - matrss 3y ago
      That is just an automatic opt-in to tracking, the opposite of what was asked for.
      - extraduder_ire 3y ago
        I use consent-o-matic for this purpose: https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic You can actually configure each toggle yourself.
        matrss 3y ago
        I've used that in the past. Unfortunately, it had some issues; some sites completely broke when consent-o-matic did its thing (e.g. page remained greyed-out and/or scrolling was broken from the cookie popup). Not their fault really and I respect the effort, but it made it hard to keep it enabled all the time. Maybe I should try it out again, it has been a while...
        rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
        https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies works much better, in my experience.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  By modifying the site that way you're violating its ToS and can simply be denied service, as you are neither accepting or denying the request (you can't deny it because you haven't read it). Yeah you can claim otherwise and other people are free to just deny you service. EU still doesn't have access to Threads, right? Twitter is thinking of turning off the EU as well. That attitude is why. Trade is a two way street and constantly harassing the providers is a good way to find yourself without any services to harass anymore.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Consent is not a request where the consumer has to make a decision to accept or deny, in EU consent is an opt-in activity. So there is a clear default state - doing nothing is the same thing as refusing a request, and refusing to even read any requests is a perfectly legitimate way of doing nothing. There is no legal or moral reason to afford the request any attention or consideration, if you're ignoring it, then you're not opting in, and the site has very clear explicit information that it doesn't have your consent.
extraduder_ire 3y ago
The DNT header already has a setting for that: "DNT: 0" (as well as '1', and 'unset') For one reason or another, the header has been deprecated for years now. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN...

layer8 3y ago

I don’t think there’s anything that would disallow asking the user questions. It’s rather that even if the user gives consent through a web UI, the DNT header would still continue to be sent, thus presumably immediately revoking the consent given.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tzs 3y ago
I doubt that a court or regulator would see that as a revocation of consent when the consent was explicitly given by the user. DNT is a global so its continuing to be sent to the site doesn't really provide any evidence that the user means to revoke the consent that they just gave. All it really indicates is that the user doesn't want to turn off DNT globally.