3 ms·

Yes there is. More specifically, it’s the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC, which each member state adjusts their own laws to follow.

Yes there is. More specifically, it’s the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC, which each member state adjusts their own laws to follow. It’s published here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02002L0058-20091219 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... The relevant part: > Article 5 > Confidentiality of the communications > 3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service. If you want to argue that companies have a legal alternative to showing you cookie banners, then by all means do so. But don’t say there’s no law because there clearly is. This is a misleading and inflammatory headline. Edit: Yes, I read the article. To draw a distinction between “must obtain consent” and “must show UI that obtains consent” is of no value unless you want to write an article with a shocking headline.

ascar 3y ago
The article makes that point. There is no law to put a giant banner that disturbs UX in your users face. Companies choose to do so. There only is a law that prevents companies from tracking you without consent.
shdon 3y ago
But that is what the title states and is explained in the article. There is no law that forces a cookie banner. There is a law that requires consent before tracking, but that is not necessarily about showing a banner - that is just one of the possible ways of complying with the law. There is an electronic privacy law, and it is quite comprehensive. There is no "cookie banner law".
iainmerrick 3y ago
There’s a law, but it’s not a “cookie banner law”. The section you quoted says nothing about banners. The banners are a design decision by the operators.
krab 3y ago
But this is exactly what the article is saying.
kome 3y ago
I think you might not have fully grasped the meaning of the post. Let me rephrase it for clarity: there is no cookie banner law, but a consent law, but it doesn't need to be as ugly, intrusive or user-unfriendly as the current cookie banners. One alternative is to opt out of using cookies on your website entirely (which is what I do, by the way), and then you won't need to ask for consent. Or to use a simple, unremarkable, bar.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  I think you might not have read beyond the first line of my comment. Why are you telling me that there are alternatives? I literally said that in my comment.
nicce 3y ago
You are citing directive that does not apply in all cases. It is amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which changes especially the cookies part. > (66) Third parties may wish to store information on the equipment of a user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of purposes, ranging from the legitimate (such as certain types of cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private sphere (such as spyware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive information when engaging in any activity which could result in such storage or gaining of access. The methods of providing information and offering the right to refuse should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The enforcement of these requirements should be made more effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national authorities. If you read the exceptions part, you know that you don't need a banner on strictly necessary case.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  That update doesn’t matter because the original has the same exception. I quoted it.
  - nicce 3y ago
    Then there isn't cookie law?
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      If there are exceptions to copyright such as fair use, does that mean that there is no copyright law?
      - 3y ago
K0nserv 3y ago
This doesn't require a specific implementation just that informed consent is given. This could be implemented as a web standard alá Apple's ATT(App Tracking Transparency). There's nothing preventing the industry from creating such a standard, obviating cookie banners in the process. This would not only be a win for users, who could express their overall position on consent as a browser setting, but also save thousands of developer hours for website.
gwd 3y ago
> This shall not prevent any technical storage or access ...or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service. If the functionality explicitly requested by the user -- e.g., logging in, or changing the default language or currency, or what-not -- no consent is necessary to keep cookies. Cookies are only necessary for things the user didn't implicitly ask for, like tracking.
5kyn3t 3y ago
hmm I disagree. I found the article, quite an eye opener for me. I also thought that he cookie banners is what the EU forced the web-site owners to show.. but it clearly isn't. It is just about consent. This consent could be given in a non-annoying way, but clearly the involved companies don't want to.

ascar 3y ago

The article makes that point. There is no law to put a giant banner that disturbs UX in your users face. Companies choose to do so. There only is a law that prevents companies from tracking you without consent.

shdon 3y ago

But that is what the title states and is explained in the article. There is no law that forces a cookie banner. There is a law that requires consent before tracking, but that is not necessarily about showing a banner - that is just one of the possible ways of complying with the law. There is an electronic privacy law, and it is quite comprehensive. There is no "cookie banner law".

iainmerrick 3y ago

There’s a law, but it’s not a “cookie banner law”. The section you quoted says nothing about banners. The banners are a design decision by the operators.

krab 3y ago

But this is exactly what the article is saying.

kome 3y ago

I think you might not have fully grasped the meaning of the post. Let me rephrase it for clarity: there is no cookie banner law, but a consent law, but it doesn't need to be as ugly, intrusive or user-unfriendly as the current cookie banners. One alternative is to opt out of using cookies on your website entirely (which is what I do, by the way), and then you won't need to ask for consent. Or to use a simple, unremarkable, bar.

JimDabell 3y ago
I think you might not have read beyond the first line of my comment. Why are you telling me that there are alternatives? I literally said that in my comment.

nicce 3y ago

You are citing directive that does not apply in all cases. It is amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which changes especially the cookies part. > (66) Third parties may wish to store information on the equipment of a user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of purposes, ranging from the legitimate (such as certain types of cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private sphere (such as spyware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive information when engaging in any activity which could result in such storage or gaining of access. The methods of providing information and offering the right to refuse should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The enforcement of these requirements should be made more effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national authorities. If you read the exceptions part, you know that you don't need a banner on strictly necessary case.

JimDabell 3y ago
That update doesn’t matter because the original has the same exception. I quoted it.
- nicce 3y ago
  Then there isn't cookie law?
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    If there are exceptions to copyright such as fair use, does that mean that there is no copyright law?
    - 3y ago

K0nserv 3y ago

This doesn't require a specific implementation just that informed consent is given. This could be implemented as a web standard alá Apple's ATT(App Tracking Transparency). There's nothing preventing the industry from creating such a standard, obviating cookie banners in the process. This would not only be a win for users, who could express their overall position on consent as a browser setting, but also save thousands of developer hours for website.

gwd 3y ago

> This shall not prevent any technical storage or access ...or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service. If the functionality explicitly requested by the user -- e.g., logging in, or changing the default language or currency, or what-not -- no consent is necessary to keep cookies. Cookies are only necessary for things the user didn't implicitly ask for, like tracking.

5kyn3t 3y ago

hmm I disagree. I found the article, quite an eye opener for me. I also thought that he cookie banners is what the EU forced the web-site owners to show.. but it clearly isn't. It is just about consent. This consent could be given in a non-annoying way, but clearly the involved companies don't want to.