3 ms·
They are easier to click now, first sites with cookie wall setups were often bad pattern, hard to disagree with non essential cookies and so on, they basically
by mobilemidget 2y ago
They are easier to click now, first sites with cookie wall setups were often bad pattern, hard to disagree with non essential cookies and so on, they basically forced you or tried to trick you into accepting all cookies, essential, marketing, social and what not. Now you see more sites that have default setting to only allow essential.
But regulator obviously didn't know how cookies work, what they are good for, what they are bad for and whatever they try to outlaw now gets correlated via different means. User-agent, ip and some other browser fingerprinting.
So bottomline, we have to click once more (or every time, when private/incognito mode) when you visit a site.
- Macha 2y agoSo there's the old e-privacy directive which I agree was poorly thought out, but cookie banners in their current form were implemented by companies as a reaction to GDPR which has no thoughts on cookies - fingerprinting is equivalent to cookies under the GDPR.
- cccbbbaaa 2y agoIt already was equivalent under ePrivacy.
- troupo 2y ago> But regulator obviously didn't know how cookies work, what they are good for, what they are bad for and whatever they try to outlaw now gets correlated via different means. User-agent, ip and some other browser fingerprinting. The regulators are very aware of it, that's why the law doesn't say anything about cookies. You'd know that if you cared to read it. It's only been 6 years, and the law can be read in it's entirety in an afternoon or less. So I see why the task of actually learning anything about GDPR beyond what the industry tells you to seems insurmountable to most IT people.