3 ms·
The cookie warnings are dumb, because if an individual wishes not to use cookies, he is free to configure his browser to refuse to use cookies. It is entirely
by eadmund 3y ago
The cookie warnings are dumb, because if an individual wishes not to use cookies, he is free to configure his browser to refuse to use cookies. It is entirely and 100% under the user’s control.
Heck, the way the cookie protocol works the server already says ‘hey, may I store this cookie?’ by sending the Set-Cookie header. The user’s browser doesn’t have to do anything if he doesn’t want it to!
- bazoom42 3y agoIt is not a cookie-warning, it is a tracking-warning. It is not a question of cookies per se. You can use localStorage and other techniques to track users without using cookies. But you still have to show the warning if you are tracking. And there a plenty of legitimate uses of cookies.
- CaptainZapp 3y agoIf those scum-of-the-earth add tech companies would have respected the DO NOT TRACK flag, I'd concede that you have a point.
- ben-schaaf 3y agoThere are plenty of use-cases that are covered by implicit consent where the website uses cookies for basic functionality (like login sessions or shopping carts) where no banner is required.
- graemep 3y agoIts worse than that. I used to use a cookie whitelist addon in firefox, so only a few sites could set cookies at all. I stopped using it because if you blocked websites from setting cookies, that meant the cookie consent banner showed on every page rather than the first you viewed because the cookie consent cookie had been blocked. That made blocking cookies entirely apart from whitelisted sites impossible.
- yohannparis 3y agoWanting to limit what kind of cookie is the purpose of the law. I want some cookies (like user preferences, session tokens) but not the one from advertisers to follow me across domain names. Not every one is tech-savvy and that is why we have regulations.