4 ms·

So remove the consent exception against tracking? Simply make it illegal, banner or no?

aziaziazi 2y ago
It’s not a tracking banner but a cookie banner and some applications have a legitimate need for cookies. They abuse what is legitimate, but you can’t ask regulators to check every site without a national (European?) white liste firewall (shouldn’t give them ideas…). Also, most tracking used to use cookies but if that becomes illegal there’s others ways.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).
  - creer 2y ago
    And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?
      - creer 2y ago
        the same way that they interact with any other web page? which never need banners? You don't need a banner to opt in or out (or ignore). By this I mean the law is what it is but the implementation is deliberately hurting the visitors in the hope that they will click "yeah sure whatever" to be let through to the content. The harm does not come from the legislation but is deliberately anti-user by the web site owner. (Fine, in some cases it might be out of the box and merely lazy.)
        PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Right but that's not optional cookies functioning at all, that's simply rejecting them altogether. Why not just say that? It's also a much easier sentiment to agree with than these confusing semantics about optional cookies working fine if you just ignore the banner.
serial_dev 2y ago
I don’t know how to fix it, but I know it isn’t fixed now. We have both tracking and cookie banners.
ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
Do Not Track header? It's the silver bullet but the stakeholders will argue it is invalid and cannot possibly be used to inform the server that the client wishes not to be tracked
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  Someone needs to put a stake in those stakeholders.
  - account42 2y ago
    The only way to permanently rid yourself of information vampires.

It’s not a tracking banner but a cookie banner and some applications have a legitimate need for cookies. They abuse what is legitimate, but you can’t ask regulators to check every site without a national (European?) white liste firewall (shouldn’t give them ideas…). Also, most tracking used to use cookies but if that becomes illegal there’s others ways.

idle_zealot 2y ago
Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).
- creer 2y ago
  And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?
    - creer 2y ago
      the same way that they interact with any other web page? which never need banners? You don't need a banner to opt in or out (or ignore). By this I mean the law is what it is but the implementation is deliberately hurting the visitors in the hope that they will click "yeah sure whatever" to be let through to the content. The harm does not come from the legislation but is deliberately anti-user by the web site owner. (Fine, in some cases it might be out of the box and merely lazy.)
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Right but that's not optional cookies functioning at all, that's simply rejecting them altogether. Why not just say that? It's also a much easier sentiment to agree with than these confusing semantics about optional cookies working fine if you just ignore the banner.

serial_dev 2y ago

I don’t know how to fix it, but I know it isn’t fixed now. We have both tracking and cookie banners.

ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago

Do Not Track header? It's the silver bullet but the stakeholders will argue it is invalid and cannot possibly be used to inform the server that the client wishes not to be tracked

Earw0rm 2y ago
Someone needs to put a stake in those stakeholders.
- account42 2y ago
  The only way to permanently rid yourself of information vampires.