4 ms·

The privacy policy is also well written. I didn't know you could not have a cookie pop up.

mgkimsal 3y ago
That’s sad and frustrating that we’ve come to this point. I posted a web service I’d done and someone questioned that. I was told “you have to have a pop up - it’s not legal to run a site without that!” (Paraphrasing). I despair of what we’ve turned the web in to.
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  If you want to link a high profile example, GitHub doesn't have one: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
  - mgkimsal 3y ago
    Thanks!
  - avandekleut 3y ago
    Im not sure if youre joking but I get a cookie popup when visiting this link.
    - janosdebugs 3y ago
      Ohwow, they walked back on it. I guess their analytics were worth more after all.
      - madacol 3y ago
        github.blog ask for cookies, but github.com does not
khaki54 3y ago
Apparently you only need the popup if you are doing something nefarious. Otherwise it's not required! Yikes!
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Yes, and it's why European privacy conscious people get mad when people complain about the EU making the user experience on the internet worse: the EU isn't mandating cookie banners at all, it just requires user consent before doing fishy things with their private data. But if you don't do anything fishy with those data (like selling it with 678 “partners”), there's no consent to get.
- kbutler 3y ago
  This does not appear to be accurate. The official EU GDPR site says that consent is required for anything except "strictly necessary" cookies. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ "To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies." There are no exceptions for not "nefarious" or "fishy" - only if there is no way your site can function without every cookie. Legitimate reasons to use cookies that are not strictly necessary include analytics, optimization, user experience, social media sharing, sign in with (third-party IDP), incorporating content or code that is hosted on other sites, and more. I recognize and agree with the dislike for this, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love a correction.
  - _akhe 3y ago
    "Analytics and optimization" is where all the nefariousness goes down IMO, even if it's "for the user". When a site predicts things for a user, some users are delighted by the UX while others are put off by being spied on. So even in the "to improve our UX" case, it's up to the tracked to decide if it's nefarious or not - if they consent or not. It makes more sense to always prompt when using them. Also, I'm seeing headlines like "Are Internet Cookies About To Crumble?" (not really, but you know how tech media is!) but I wonder how much longer cookies are even going to be relevant. When's the last time you did this: document.cookie = "username=John Smith; expires=Thu, 18 Dec 2013 12:00:00 UTC; path=/"; For most modern developers, the answer is never! They're not really used in modern development by us. Apparently about 40% of websites use cookies, and it's almost always for ad re-targeting - the only reason they make you auth again after clearing is really to auth you with the cookie, your auth with the site is usually just HTTP requests and doesn't require cookies. TLDR I think they're going away anyway, they're passe and it makes too much sense for Google to obsolete competitors by suddenly dropping them. GDPR calling out cookies is like the American law that bans "magic mushrooms" - they should have been more specific in identifying a specific unlawful behavior. Upvoted for the good info btw (it just didn't do anything lol) thanks for sharing

That’s sad and frustrating that we’ve come to this point. I posted a web service I’d done and someone questioned that. I was told “you have to have a pop up - it’s not legal to run a site without that!” (Paraphrasing). I despair of what we’ve turned the web in to.

janosdebugs 3y ago
If you want to link a high profile example, GitHub doesn't have one: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
- mgkimsal 3y ago
  Thanks!
- avandekleut 3y ago
  Im not sure if youre joking but I get a cookie popup when visiting this link.
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    Ohwow, they walked back on it. I guess their analytics were worth more after all.
    - madacol 3y ago
      github.blog ask for cookies, but github.com does not

khaki54 3y ago

Apparently you only need the popup if you are doing something nefarious. Otherwise it's not required! Yikes!

littlestymaar 3y ago
Yes, and it's why European privacy conscious people get mad when people complain about the EU making the user experience on the internet worse: the EU isn't mandating cookie banners at all, it just requires user consent before doing fishy things with their private data. But if you don't do anything fishy with those data (like selling it with 678 “partners”), there's no consent to get.
kbutler 3y ago
This does not appear to be accurate. The official EU GDPR site says that consent is required for anything except "strictly necessary" cookies. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ "To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies." There are no exceptions for not "nefarious" or "fishy" - only if there is no way your site can function without every cookie. Legitimate reasons to use cookies that are not strictly necessary include analytics, optimization, user experience, social media sharing, sign in with (third-party IDP), incorporating content or code that is hosted on other sites, and more. I recognize and agree with the dislike for this, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love a correction.
- _akhe 3y ago
  "Analytics and optimization" is where all the nefariousness goes down IMO, even if it's "for the user". When a site predicts things for a user, some users are delighted by the UX while others are put off by being spied on. So even in the "to improve our UX" case, it's up to the tracked to decide if it's nefarious or not - if they consent or not. It makes more sense to always prompt when using them. Also, I'm seeing headlines like "Are Internet Cookies About To Crumble?" (not really, but you know how tech media is!) but I wonder how much longer cookies are even going to be relevant. When's the last time you did this: document.cookie = "username=John Smith; expires=Thu, 18 Dec 2013 12:00:00 UTC; path=/"; For most modern developers, the answer is never! They're not really used in modern development by us. Apparently about 40% of websites use cookies, and it's almost always for ad re-targeting - the only reason they make you auth again after clearing is really to auth you with the cookie, your auth with the site is usually just HTTP requests and doesn't require cookies. TLDR I think they're going away anyway, they're passe and it makes too much sense for Google to obsolete competitors by suddenly dropping them. GDPR calling out cookies is like the American law that bans "magic mushrooms" - they should have been more specific in identifying a specific unlawful behavior. Upvoted for the good info btw (it just didn't do anything lol) thanks for sharing