3 ms·

There are a lot of laws and not all of them get updated, as regulatory bodies only have so much time, attention, and political capital. The EU's cookie law stil

by ggreer 2y ago

There are a lot of laws and not all of them get updated, as regulatory bodies only have so much time, attention, and political capital. The EU's cookie law still requires a banner if your site uses a cookie to store something like preferred language or default location (even if it's not tied to a specific identity), as those aren't considered "strictly necessary" cookies. GDPR's right to be forgotten hasn't been updated to stop abuse by people who want to hide their past crimes or controversial behavior. The EU's laws on self-driving vehicles still restrict maximum lateral acceleration and lane change behavior, forcing vehicle manufacturers to gimp their software in the EU. The new USB-C law could be improved significantly if it was a tax instead of a mandate. There is a dollar value associated with the cost of recycling proprietary chargers. Taxing that would be a source of revenue for the EU and allow other chargers for purposes that we can't predict today. The current law is purely a cost center for both governments and manufacturers. And since everyone agrees it will need to be updated at some point, it's the law equivalent of tech debt. I'm surprised at the responses I've gotten considering how I didn't say I was against this law. I just said I'm not sure if it's a good idea in the long term. And so far, the replies haven't engaged with most of my points. The EU's mandate helps big companies at the expense of small ones, does nothing to discourage electronic waste unrelated to chargers, and makes it harder to switch to whatever will come after USB-C. Yes it's possible for the EU to change the law, but considering they've started with a flawed law and they haven't updated quite a few other laws, I would bet against this law getting updated promptly.

daveoc64 2y ago
>The EU's cookie law still requires a banner if your site uses a cookie to store something like preferred language or default location (even if it's not tied to a specific identity), as those aren't considered "strictly necessary" cookies. This simply isn't true, and your source for this is biased as another commenter has stated. The EU website has the exact legal definitions: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/online-privacy/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
- ggreer 2y ago
  I'm happy to be corrected on this, but your source says nothing about the kind of cookies I mentioned. Examples of strictly necessary cookies are auth sessions and shopping cart contents, not preferred language or default location. Paragraph 25 of the law states[1]: > Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. Is storing preferred language or default location strictly necessary, or just a legitimate purpose (and thus requires consent)? The EU has had since 2009 to clarify this, but many sites (including the news article about the USB-C law) interpret it to mean that consent is required, and thus have cookie banners for these things. If you can't agree that the cookie law is a bad law that either needs to be repealed, clarified, or made more strict, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a perfect example of a well-intended law that causes more problems than it solves. And it's a perfect example of the EU failing to update a law with clear flaws. I don't know if the USB-C law will have a similar outcome, but considering the EU's track record, I'm not confident it will be a good thing in the long term. 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
  - cccbbbaaa 2y ago
    > The EU has had since 2009 to clarify this They did, back in 2012. See point 3.6 here: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2012/wp194_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... More recently, see point 49 here (in French): https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/lignes_directrices_de_la_cnil_sur_les_cookies_et_autres_traceurs.pdf https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/lignes_dire...
    - ggreer 2y ago

by ggreer 2y ago

daveoc64 2y ago

>The EU's cookie law still requires a banner if your site uses a cookie to store something like preferred language or default location (even if it's not tied to a specific identity), as those aren't considered "strictly necessary" cookies. This simply isn't true, and your source for this is biased as another commenter has stated. The EU website has the exact legal definitions: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/online-privacy/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...

ggreer 2y ago
I'm happy to be corrected on this, but your source says nothing about the kind of cookies I mentioned. Examples of strictly necessary cookies are auth sessions and shopping cart contents, not preferred language or default location. Paragraph 25 of the law states[1]: > Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. Is storing preferred language or default location strictly necessary, or just a legitimate purpose (and thus requires consent)? The EU has had since 2009 to clarify this, but many sites (including the news article about the USB-C law) interpret it to mean that consent is required, and thus have cookie banners for these things. If you can't agree that the cookie law is a bad law that either needs to be repealed, clarified, or made more strict, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a perfect example of a well-intended law that causes more problems than it solves. And it's a perfect example of the EU failing to update a law with clear flaws. I don't know if the USB-C law will have a similar outcome, but considering the EU's track record, I'm not confident it will be a good thing in the long term. 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
- cccbbbaaa 2y ago
  > The EU has had since 2009 to clarify this They did, back in 2012. See point 3.6 here: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2012/wp194_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... More recently, see point 49 here (in French): https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/lignes_directrices_de_la_cnil_sur_les_cookies_et_autres_traceurs.pdf https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/lignes_dire...
  - ggreer 2y ago