4 ms·

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 a

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.
        runako 2y ago
        > Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases Showing a cookie banner on each site is pounding us all into submission. It's not that any single website's banner is too much; it's that we are all clicking them all day long. Honestly, it would be awesome if there was an effective way to geofence these banners to the EU. However, IIRC the EU law asserts control over websites in other countries, on the off chance that an EU national might access the website.
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    As a practical suggestion, there are browser extensions that can handle many of these banners. Meanwhile, blocking cookies does not prevent many other forms of tracking to which the GDPR's consent requirements apply just as much as they do to cookies. I hate the cookie banners too, but I blame the bad actors more than the legislators that at least gave me more information and rights than I would otherwise have had.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > It absolutely is hurtful to users to have to make a choice dozens of times every day. I'd argue that what is hurting the users, are the companies who insist that they need to track individuals in those ways. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to show the banners in the first place, and no user would have to confirm/reject anything. Maybe I'm alone, but I prefer a choice every day of the week, as then I can at least chose for myself. The alternative is just unchecked privacy-violations, and that sounds worse to me, but we're all different, luckily.
    - runako 2y ago
      > but I prefer a choice every day of the week That would be an interesting discussion, but that's not on offer. What is instead on offer is dozens of choices every day of the week. Is any person really expected to read and understand a dozen or more privacy policies every day?
      - diggan 2y ago
        > Is any person really expected to read and understand a dozen or more privacy policies every day? People are expected to make reasonable choices in their day-to-day life or suffer the consequences, yes. If you don't want to read the privacy policy, click "Reject" and you don't have to. Tired of clicking reject every day? Send an email to the company and tell them to get rid of it. They can, they just don't want to, and prefer to annoy users instead, because that makes them more money. We give people the option to take a loan. If they take a loan without reading the terms and conditions, and sign up for very unfavorable terms even if it was very clear, then usually you have to stand for that choice. Why would allowing/rejecting data collection work any differently?
  - thayne 2y ago
    And in fact, it is even worse for people who block cookies, periodically delete cookies, etc. Because you often have to respond to the popup every single time you visit the site, since it uses a cookie to remember your preference.
    - diggan 2y ago
      Storing a cookie to remember a "Reject tracking cookies" is fine. You're allowed to store cookies without consent, the objective of the cookie matters when figuring out if it's allowed to be stored without consent or not. If people would just spend like 10-15 minutes reading up what they're arguing about, we'd actually get some substantive discussions on this topic.
      - thayne 2y ago
        I didn't say it wasn't fine. I'm saying that if you set your browser to automatically clear all cookies after a session, every day, etc. Then it will delete the cookie to remember "Reject tracking cookies". Also, if the site is using a third party service for the cookie banner, the cookie for remembering "reject racking cookies" might be stored as a third party cookie that the browser then doesn't store at all, depending on the browser settings.

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.
      - runako 2y ago
        > Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases Showing a cookie banner on each site is pounding us all into submission. It's not that any single website's banner is too much; it's that we are all clicking them all day long. Honestly, it would be awesome if there was an effective way to geofence these banners to the EU. However, IIRC the EU law asserts control over websites in other countries, on the off chance that an EU national might access the website.
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  As a practical suggestion, there are browser extensions that can handle many of these banners. Meanwhile, blocking cookies does not prevent many other forms of tracking to which the GDPR's consent requirements apply just as much as they do to cookies. I hate the cookie banners too, but I blame the bad actors more than the legislators that at least gave me more information and rights than I would otherwise have had.
- diggan 2y ago
  > It absolutely is hurtful to users to have to make a choice dozens of times every day. I'd argue that what is hurting the users, are the companies who insist that they need to track individuals in those ways. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to show the banners in the first place, and no user would have to confirm/reject anything. Maybe I'm alone, but I prefer a choice every day of the week, as then I can at least chose for myself. The alternative is just unchecked privacy-violations, and that sounds worse to me, but we're all different, luckily.
  - runako 2y ago
    > but I prefer a choice every day of the week That would be an interesting discussion, but that's not on offer. What is instead on offer is dozens of choices every day of the week. Is any person really expected to read and understand a dozen or more privacy policies every day?
    - diggan 2y ago
      > Is any person really expected to read and understand a dozen or more privacy policies every day? People are expected to make reasonable choices in their day-to-day life or suffer the consequences, yes. If you don't want to read the privacy policy, click "Reject" and you don't have to. Tired of clicking reject every day? Send an email to the company and tell them to get rid of it. They can, they just don't want to, and prefer to annoy users instead, because that makes them more money. We give people the option to take a loan. If they take a loan without reading the terms and conditions, and sign up for very unfavorable terms even if it was very clear, then usually you have to stand for that choice. Why would allowing/rejecting data collection work any differently?
- thayne 2y ago
  And in fact, it is even worse for people who block cookies, periodically delete cookies, etc. Because you often have to respond to the popup every single time you visit the site, since it uses a cookie to remember your preference.
  - diggan 2y ago
    Storing a cookie to remember a "Reject tracking cookies" is fine. You're allowed to store cookies without consent, the objective of the cookie matters when figuring out if it's allowed to be stored without consent or not. If people would just spend like 10-15 minutes reading up what they're arguing about, we'd actually get some substantive discussions on this topic.
    - thayne 2y ago
      I didn't say it wasn't fine. I'm saying that if you set your browser to automatically clear all cookies after a session, every day, etc. Then it will delete the cookie to remember "Reject tracking cookies". Also, if the site is using a third party service for the cookie banner, the cookie for remembering "reject racking cookies" might be stored as a third party cookie that the browser then doesn't store at all, depending on the browser settings.