3 ms·

The law isn't that bad actually, just that the courts have been very slow. The dark UI patterns are actually illegal and have been judged so in court now. This

by boxed 3y ago

The law isn't that bad actually, just that the courts have been very slow. The dark UI patterns are actually illegal and have been judged so in court now. This realization just has to trickle down to the companies writing these cookie banners.

63stack 3y ago
* There was an option of making this non-intrusive, by requiring it to be a browser setting, they chose not to * The law went into effect ~6 years ago * Companies still break the law by employing dark patterns My take is that it makes both the law, and the courts bad.
- toyg 3y ago
  Neither the law or the court can start any enforcement proceeding. Clearly, national prosecution authorities can't be arsed and we don't have enough citizen-activists filing strong lawsuits.
ankit219 3y ago
My take is that law tries to dictate UX more than just set groundrules which good laws do. They pre-emptively set the law such that it prevents any use when the focus is on misuse. The law is about 1st party and 3rd party cookies, not just 3rd party. In an ideal case, if it was just a law, a simpler wording could be "you are allowed to collect anonymized data, but not monetize/share it without permission from users. We may ask you to furnish proof that you havent been doing that at times, failing which you would face massive fines (as %age of revenue whatever)." Problem is collecting basic anonymized usage data[1] is needed by companies to improve the product, provide a better experience, detect misuse. They bundled those use cases with everything else meaning the law was too broad and we got cookie banners given every site needs basic analytics. On flipside, worst is that most websites use Google Analytics, so they might have had to display the banners anyway. [1] Moreover, it's vaguely worded so we companies do not know if they have committed a GDPR offence. By general understanding IP addresses are under GDPR. You can get that via request headers. So, to be on the safe side, even anonymized analytics tracking is considered under GDPR
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 3y ago
  Usage data is NOT needed to improve your website. > Moreover, it's vaguely worded so we companies do not know if they have committed a GDPR offence. Only if they are trying to skirt the law.
  - ankit219 3y ago
    If it was so clear, why do we have European courts giving clarifications now that were not clear at the time of original law? like this: https://www.gdprsummary.com/cookie-consent-must-be-an-active-choice/ https://www.gdprsummary.com/cookie-consent-must-be-an-active... notice the part about how purposes cannot be bundled together. EU's own website does that till date. > NOT needed to improve your website When I say usage data, aggregated data about how many people bounced off my page, or how long it took for my webpage to load under different internet connections is absolutely needed for me to make sure every user that comes on the page is having a good enough experience. I may not save any info, but those numbers are definitely used in aggregate. if the bounce rate is too high, content is not useful for people i am reaching. If i cant know that, how does the webpage gets better. That is usage data. I do not care about who the person is, but I would want to know whether it was one person doing one action 100 times or 100 different people doing the same action. Makes a massive difference.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
> The law isn't that bad actually I've clicked 3 cookie banners today alone and its not even 2pm yet. How many cookie banners have I clicked in my life so far? How many cookie banners can I expect to click over the remaining 40-50 years of my life? The law is objectively bad.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  >The law is objectively bad. No, the websites you visit are probably bad. Which cookies did you have to accept/reject? What do they do? Why do the websites believe they must ask you to accept them? Also, the law allow browsers to automatically accept/reject the cookies on your behalf (actually, the law does not care about which specific technology the websites use to collect and process personal data). You, as a user, can choose a browser/extension that rejects these cookies by default, except the necessary ones. I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/istilldontcar... and I haven't see a single cookie banner for years on desktop and mobile. I don't like cookies and I like the law.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by boxed 3y ago

63stack 3y ago

* There was an option of making this non-intrusive, by requiring it to be a browser setting, they chose not to * The law went into effect ~6 years ago * Companies still break the law by employing dark patterns My take is that it makes both the law, and the courts bad.

toyg 3y ago
Neither the law or the court can start any enforcement proceeding. Clearly, national prosecution authorities can't be arsed and we don't have enough citizen-activists filing strong lawsuits.

ankit219 3y ago

My take is that law tries to dictate UX more than just set groundrules which good laws do. They pre-emptively set the law such that it prevents any use when the focus is on misuse. The law is about 1st party and 3rd party cookies, not just 3rd party. In an ideal case, if it was just a law, a simpler wording could be "you are allowed to collect anonymized data, but not monetize/share it without permission from users. We may ask you to furnish proof that you havent been doing that at times, failing which you would face massive fines (as %age of revenue whatever)." Problem is collecting basic anonymized usage data[1] is needed by companies to improve the product, provide a better experience, detect misuse. They bundled those use cases with everything else meaning the law was too broad and we got cookie banners given every site needs basic analytics. On flipside, worst is that most websites use Google Analytics, so they might have had to display the banners anyway. [1] Moreover, it's vaguely worded so we companies do not know if they have committed a GDPR offence. By general understanding IP addresses are under GDPR. You can get that via request headers. So, to be on the safe side, even anonymized analytics tracking is considered under GDPR

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
account42 3y ago
Usage data is NOT needed to improve your website. > Moreover, it's vaguely worded so we companies do not know if they have committed a GDPR offence. Only if they are trying to skirt the law.
- ankit219 3y ago
  If it was so clear, why do we have European courts giving clarifications now that were not clear at the time of original law? like this: https://www.gdprsummary.com/cookie-consent-must-be-an-active-choice/ https://www.gdprsummary.com/cookie-consent-must-be-an-active... notice the part about how purposes cannot be bundled together. EU's own website does that till date. > NOT needed to improve your website When I say usage data, aggregated data about how many people bounced off my page, or how long it took for my webpage to load under different internet connections is absolutely needed for me to make sure every user that comes on the page is having a good enough experience. I may not save any info, but those numbers are definitely used in aggregate. if the bounce rate is too high, content is not useful for people i am reaching. If i cant know that, how does the webpage gets better. That is usage data. I do not care about who the person is, but I would want to know whether it was one person doing one action 100 times or 100 different people doing the same action. Makes a massive difference.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

> The law isn't that bad actually I've clicked 3 cookie banners today alone and its not even 2pm yet. How many cookie banners have I clicked in my life so far? How many cookie banners can I expect to click over the remaining 40-50 years of my life? The law is objectively bad.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
>The law is objectively bad. No, the websites you visit are probably bad. Which cookies did you have to accept/reject? What do they do? Why do the websites believe they must ask you to accept them? Also, the law allow browsers to automatically accept/reject the cookies on your behalf (actually, the law does not care about which specific technology the websites use to collect and process personal data). You, as a user, can choose a browser/extension that rejects these cookies by default, except the necessary ones. I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/istilldontcar... and I haven't see a single cookie banner for years on desktop and mobile. I don't like cookies and I like the law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]