3 ms·
> informed tracking consent In theory I think people would thank the EU for this, but in practice people generally dislike the new cookie banner status quo. W
by nonethewiser 3y ago
> informed tracking consent
In theory I think people would thank the EU for this, but in practice people generally dislike the new cookie banner status quo.
We can quibble about whether the legislation necessarily dictates the shitty scenario we find ourselves in, but its the scenario it did lead to nonetheless.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe cookie banner status quo is malicious compliance by the tracking industry that the EU should come down hard on. In many cases they violate the GDPR by not giving accept and reject equal billing.
- ChadNauseam 3y agoIs it malicious compliance? How else were they supposed to comply?
- marginalia_nu 3y agoYou don't need to ask consent for data processing that is needed for operating a service, just stuff like user tracking.
- wharvle 3y agoUse a much-less-intrusive notification, and just use “necessary” cookies unless the user engages with the notification to say “yes, track me”. Or drop the unnecessary ones.
- joshspankit 3y agoAnyone else think “necessary cookies” should only be asked when do you something that actually requires them (such as on the login screen)?
- wharvle 3y agoThey don't need to ask at all for those.
- marssaxman 3y agoDoing less tracking would have been the better option.
- palata 3y agoMany of those popups are clearly engineered to make it painful to "reject all" and easy to "accept all". This is malicious compliance, and it should be fined big time.
- viraptor 3y ago1. Remove the third party tracking so they don't need to notify you, or 2. Provide a simple "can we share your data with third parties Allow/Decline" box, and 3. Apply DNT value automatically so they don't need to ask.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoThey could follow the DNT header. Non intrusive. Automatic. They could also... not track you? It's crazy that we have to explain that every time a thread about the cookie banner comes in. Isn't HN supposed to be a forum full of tech saavy people? What kind of blind spot people have to not be able to reach this conclusion themself and instead blame a protective law for what clearly is an abusive move from companies that have a long track record of abuses? Or do they just repeat what the PR of those companies tell them? I mean in what world have you been living in the past 30 years with companies lying, trying to escape all possible constraining laws, spying on users and generally bullying at every occasion they could? And your first conclusion is that they did the annoying banners because they are the good guys and took the best solution possible because they like you?
- weikju 3y ago> Or do they just repeat what the PR of those companies tell them? Most people do, and techies/HN people are people.
- wmf 3y agoGDPR supposedly came into effect six years ago and they haven't fixed low-hanging fruit like cookie banners. Now imagine how long it will take them to fix Apple's bullshit.
- wedernoch 3y agoI thought there's a fix incomming. But I can't find a link right now. Something about exactly the issue with "big green accept button", "small half hidden reject button".
- joshspankit 3y agoMakes sense. EU: “You need to respect PII” The market: malicious compliance and obvious dark patterns EU: sigh Ok, we’ll also have to tell you how you’re allowed to ask. drafts new legislation
- floydnoel 3y agobureaucrats don’t understand second order effects. it's in their interest not to. indeed, a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept based on the comments here.