3 ms·

> Users can disable cookies on their browser if they care about limiting tracking and website functionality. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that

> Users can disable cookies on their browser if they care about limiting tracking and website functionality. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that cookies are necessary for normal website functions like logging in to a user account. And also the fact that those types of cookies do NOT require a consent banner. > how about the user ticks a box in their browser once e.g. "I do not consent to cookies regulated by EU Cookie Law" and then that choice is sent in the header of every web request, and website operators are mandated to respect it (and NOT show a banner asking for consent every time the user visits!) I agree, that would be ideal. I hope it comes in the next version of the ePrivacy directive. > What if the operators don't respect the header? Well, what if operators don't respect the user's responses to cookie consent popups? That's what law enforcement is for. A common critique of new EU laws is that the enforcement is lax at the beginning. However, it ramps up over time and is a one-way ratchet. The EU is like a massive ship with huge inertia. Changing course takes a long time, but once it gets going, you better not be in the way. By the way, we saw this with those highly infuriating and illegal cookie banners that hide the option to deny cookies behind many clicks. The regulation clearly says it should be as easy to consent, as to not consent. And most cookie banners I see nowadays have an easy opt out button.

cbeach 3y ago
> The EU is like a massive ship with huge inertia. Changing course takes a long time, but once it gets going, you better not be in the way. Yup, Europe is so lucky to have this stubborn, inertia-ridden juggernaut in charge of dynamic and innovative technology like the Internet
- jdiez17 3y ago
  Well, I see your point. I also partly agree, in some cases it would be better if the law could catch up to new technologies faster. On the other hand, people here tend to value stability over novelty.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Won't somebody please think of all the "dynamic and innovative" ways that tech companies want to track users with? Curse the EU for putting the brakes on this!!
cbeach 3y ago
> And most cookie banners I see nowadays have an easy opt out button. ...which you have to click EVERY TIME you visit nearly every website on the web. What a great success for usability.
- jdiez17 3y ago
  That's entirely the website operator's choice. They could store that preference as a technically required cookie. But they choose to bother you every time. As we discussed, legally mandating a DNT header would be better.
- dspillett 3y ago
  > What a great success for usability. Forced onto us by the site operators (directly, or via their "partners"), not the regulations. It is called malicious compliance. In fact many of those popovers are not even properly compliant in various ways (usually breaking the "as easy to opt out as to out in" mandates, to give the most common example). If you are angry at "cookie laws" and/or GDPR, you are angry at the wrong target.

cbeach 3y ago

> The EU is like a massive ship with huge inertia. Changing course takes a long time, but once it gets going, you better not be in the way. Yup, Europe is so lucky to have this stubborn, inertia-ridden juggernaut in charge of dynamic and innovative technology like the Internet

jdiez17 3y ago
Well, I see your point. I also partly agree, in some cases it would be better if the law could catch up to new technologies faster. On the other hand, people here tend to value stability over novelty.
lupusreal 3y ago
Won't somebody please think of all the "dynamic and innovative" ways that tech companies want to track users with? Curse the EU for putting the brakes on this!!

cbeach 3y ago

> And most cookie banners I see nowadays have an easy opt out button. ...which you have to click EVERY TIME you visit nearly every website on the web. What a great success for usability.

jdiez17 3y ago
That's entirely the website operator's choice. They could store that preference as a technically required cookie. But they choose to bother you every time. As we discussed, legally mandating a DNT header would be better.
dspillett 3y ago
> What a great success for usability. Forced onto us by the site operators (directly, or via their "partners"), not the regulations. It is called malicious compliance. In fact many of those popovers are not even properly compliant in various ways (usually breaking the "as easy to opt out as to out in" mandates, to give the most common example). If you are angry at "cookie laws" and/or GDPR, you are angry at the wrong target.