6 ms·

I know this is a pretty unoriginal point, but I wish cookie consent could be a browser setting you set once and never have to deal with again unless you need to

I know this is a pretty unoriginal point, but I wish cookie consent could be a browser setting you set once and never have to deal with again unless you need to change it for a specific site. The nag screens have got to be the worst possible implementation, it's like none of the people who decided this was the way it ought to be done ever heard of alarm fatigue.

Suppafly 2y ago
No sites want that though because everyone would either check 'no cookies' or 'only necessary cookies' which would ruin their ability to make money off the vast majority of visitors to their sites.
fukusa 2y ago
Isn't this the Do Not Track (DNT) header? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
genter 2y ago
It's malicious compliance. Websites are free to simply not track you.
- weberer 2y ago
  Its also malicious legislation. The EU could have easily wrote a line in the GDPR requiring companies to respect the Do Not Track header. But they chose not to. They also included various loopholes such as "legitimate interest". The legislation was just enough that it looks like they're doing something, without actually hurting the surveillance industry's bottom line too much.
  - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
    The DNT header was devalued when Microsoft enabled it by-default in Internet Explorer, because it made it impossible for websites to determine if the DNT header was actually set by user-choice or not: any in-page cookie-consent popup that collected actual consent wouldn't change the DNT header sent by the browser, for example. I honestly don't know if Microsoft in 2011 was doing this for unsurprising business reasons (e.g. as a ploy to hurt Google (AdSense was still all-the-rage), because it's good PR, because they had any genuine concern for their users' privacy, and to do anything to win-back market-share from Chrome and Firefox) - or if it was an intentional move to torpoedo the DNT header by showing how useless it is but only because they implemented it precisely so that it would be useless... but Microsoft wouldn't benefit from user-tracking over the Internet anywhere near as much as Google did/does/would-do.
    - squigz 2y ago
      It should be the default. Maybe we could add a new 'Track Me Please' header that users can opt into
      - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
        When third-party cookies get blocked by-default this whole thing will be moot, imo.
        Sayrus 2y ago
        DNT, if respected, also applied to first party cookies as well as other tracking mechanisms.
      - devsda 2y ago
        In that case just like anti ad-blockers, the first thing we see on a page will be a very helpful guide to enable the opt-in header for that particular browser.
    - naravara 2y ago
      The EU is willing to force every user to go through an annoying browser ballot upon buying a new phone or computer, but can’t force the browser to include a DNT prompt up front if it’s that much of an issue? Plus it’s not as if these companies weren’t willing to assume consent in the absence of the DNT flag. It sounds like a bit of BS to suddenly worry about what consent really means when it goes against their bottom line. I don’t see many hands being wrung about whether the user is meaningfully consenting when they click the easiest and most visible button to dismiss a banner that obscures a quarter of their screen.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > because it made it impossible for websites to determine if the DNT header was actually set by user-choice or not Somehow that never bothered sites when the default let them track users.
chronogram 2y ago
If it was a browser setting, which already exists but gets ignored, it would get ignored and would throw up a popup anyway. You can use Consent-O-Matic[0] though, you can even select the types of tracking you do want. 0: https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic
thwarted 2y ago
P3P looked so hopeful, but died long before the legal requirements were there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
razakel 2y ago
That's exactly the point: it's to make people angry at the "stupid politicians" instead of the data thieves.

Suppafly 2y ago

No sites want that though because everyone would either check 'no cookies' or 'only necessary cookies' which would ruin their ability to make money off the vast majority of visitors to their sites.

fukusa 2y ago

Isn't this the Do Not Track (DNT) header? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

genter 2y ago

It's malicious compliance. Websites are free to simply not track you.

weberer 2y ago
Its also malicious legislation. The EU could have easily wrote a line in the GDPR requiring companies to respect the Do Not Track header. But they chose not to. They also included various loopholes such as "legitimate interest". The legislation was just enough that it looks like they're doing something, without actually hurting the surveillance industry's bottom line too much.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  The DNT header was devalued when Microsoft enabled it by-default in Internet Explorer, because it made it impossible for websites to determine if the DNT header was actually set by user-choice or not: any in-page cookie-consent popup that collected actual consent wouldn't change the DNT header sent by the browser, for example. I honestly don't know if Microsoft in 2011 was doing this for unsurprising business reasons (e.g. as a ploy to hurt Google (AdSense was still all-the-rage), because it's good PR, because they had any genuine concern for their users' privacy, and to do anything to win-back market-share from Chrome and Firefox) - or if it was an intentional move to torpoedo the DNT header by showing how useless it is but only because they implemented it precisely so that it would be useless... but Microsoft wouldn't benefit from user-tracking over the Internet anywhere near as much as Google did/does/would-do.
  - squigz 2y ago
    It should be the default. Maybe we could add a new 'Track Me Please' header that users can opt into
    - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
      When third-party cookies get blocked by-default this whole thing will be moot, imo.
      - Sayrus 2y ago
        DNT, if respected, also applied to first party cookies as well as other tracking mechanisms.
    - devsda 2y ago
      In that case just like anti ad-blockers, the first thing we see on a page will be a very helpful guide to enable the opt-in header for that particular browser.
  - naravara 2y ago
    The EU is willing to force every user to go through an annoying browser ballot upon buying a new phone or computer, but can’t force the browser to include a DNT prompt up front if it’s that much of an issue? Plus it’s not as if these companies weren’t willing to assume consent in the absence of the DNT flag. It sounds like a bit of BS to suddenly worry about what consent really means when it goes against their bottom line. I don’t see many hands being wrung about whether the user is meaningfully consenting when they click the easiest and most visible button to dismiss a banner that obscures a quarter of their screen.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > because it made it impossible for websites to determine if the DNT header was actually set by user-choice or not Somehow that never bothered sites when the default let them track users.

chronogram 2y ago

If it was a browser setting, which already exists but gets ignored, it would get ignored and would throw up a popup anyway. You can use Consent-O-Matic[0] though, you can even select the types of tracking you do want. 0: https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic

thwarted 2y ago

P3P looked so hopeful, but died long before the legal requirements were there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

razakel 2y ago

That's exactly the point: it's to make people angry at the "stupid politicians" instead of the data thieves.