3 ms·

> It's still an issue that essentially all sites are required* to include a cookie banner of some kind. Essentially all sites that ship off PII to 3rd party we

by diggan 2y ago

> It's still an issue that essentially all sites are required* to include a cookie banner of some kind. Essentially all sites that ship off PII to 3rd party websites or otherwise process PII need to include the cookie banner. They can also chose not to do those things, yet they do figure it's worth adding a cookie banner instead of changing that practice. So in reality, the websites have themselves to blame here.

lolinder 2y ago
The websites, as you note, are not the ones who are hurting from the cookie banners, so they're not looking to cast blame anywhere. The people who are hurting are the users of the internet who suddenly find themselves having to consent to cookies on every single website while still not really having any control over how much tracking is done to them. This is an entirely predictable outcome of the bill as written by virtue of the fact that it did not require websites to respect settings configured at the browser or operating system level. This was a glaring weakness in the law that was pointed out repeatedly at the time.
- diggan 2y ago
  > The people who are hurting are the users of the internet who suddenly find themselves having to consent to cookies on every single website How is more choice hurting users? I thought I'd read arguments against user choice on Facebook perhaps, but on Hacker News? Companies are now forced to give users a choice if they process/sell PII. Users can then chose to accept/reject this (if the company implementing the choice as the regulation tells them to), where both choices should be as easy as the other, and if they reject it, the company should follow what the user says. I agree with you though that it's a shame "Do-Not-Track" headers weren't built in into this, since it's already there but poorly supported. But that really should have been a given, as then companies wouldn't have any chance of turning it around. But I'm guessing they lobbied hard against that, and seemingly won.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It absolutely is hurtful to users to have to make a choice dozens of times every day. We were in a better position before, when users could choose to have their browsers just block cookies if they cared. Now I have my browser block cookies and I still have to respond to a cookie banner on every single website.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > users could choose to have their browsers just block cookies if they cared 1. That would also block functional cookies. 2. That requires users to know that it's a thing they should care about. It's not cool to spy on people just because they haven't realized what you're doing and taken countermeasures.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Agreed. But I don't think this situation is better—users now know about it but are exhausted by it. Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission.
        jkaplowitz 2y ago
        > Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission. Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases, at least by the standard which the GDPR requires. Example GDPR complaint about this problem: https://noyb.eu/en/bereal-app-wont-take-no-answer https://noyb.eu/en/bereal-app-wont-take-no-answer This aspect of the law is more an enforcement issue (including national Data Protection Authorities which have effectively been captured by the companies they are supposed to regulate) than a legislation issue. I'm glad that noyb recently got approved to file something broadly similar to what in the US would be called a class action lawsuit, so that they can do some of the enforcement that the governments won't. Consider donating to them if you want to see proper compliance. They're doing most of the useful enforcement these days. I have no affiliation myself besides also considering making my own donation.

by diggan 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

The websites, as you note, are not the ones who are hurting from the cookie banners, so they're not looking to cast blame anywhere. The people who are hurting are the users of the internet who suddenly find themselves having to consent to cookies on every single website while still not really having any control over how much tracking is done to them. This is an entirely predictable outcome of the bill as written by virtue of the fact that it did not require websites to respect settings configured at the browser or operating system level. This was a glaring weakness in the law that was pointed out repeatedly at the time.

diggan 2y ago
> The people who are hurting are the users of the internet who suddenly find themselves having to consent to cookies on every single website How is more choice hurting users? I thought I'd read arguments against user choice on Facebook perhaps, but on Hacker News? Companies are now forced to give users a choice if they process/sell PII. Users can then chose to accept/reject this (if the company implementing the choice as the regulation tells them to), where both choices should be as easy as the other, and if they reject it, the company should follow what the user says. I agree with you though that it's a shame "Do-Not-Track" headers weren't built in into this, since it's already there but poorly supported. But that really should have been a given, as then companies wouldn't have any chance of turning it around. But I'm guessing they lobbied hard against that, and seemingly won.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It absolutely is hurtful to users to have to make a choice dozens of times every day. We were in a better position before, when users could choose to have their browsers just block cookies if they cared. Now I have my browser block cookies and I still have to respond to a cookie banner on every single website.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > users could choose to have their browsers just block cookies if they cared 1. That would also block functional cookies. 2. That requires users to know that it's a thing they should care about. It's not cool to spy on people just because they haven't realized what you're doing and taken countermeasures.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Agreed. But I don't think this situation is better—users now know about it but are exhausted by it. Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission.
      - jkaplowitz 2y ago
        > Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission. Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases, at least by the standard which the GDPR requires. Example GDPR complaint about this problem: https://noyb.eu/en/bereal-app-wont-take-no-answer https://noyb.eu/en/bereal-app-wont-take-no-answer This aspect of the law is more an enforcement issue (including national Data Protection Authorities which have effectively been captured by the companies they are supposed to regulate) than a legislation issue. I'm glad that noyb recently got approved to file something broadly similar to what in the US would be called a class action lawsuit, so that they can do some of the enforcement that the governments won't. Consider donating to them if you want to see proper compliance. They're doing most of the useful enforcement these days. I have no affiliation myself besides also considering making my own donation.