5 ms·

Not even sure you need any discreet notice about anything for strictly necessary first party cookies. That's my understanding of GDPR, at any rate.

martin_a 2y ago
That's true. Strictly technically necessary cookies do not need consent or even information with a banner. Guess it's nice to know, but probably not legally necessary.
- high_na_euv 2y ago
  >Guess it's nice to know It isnt, why should I care?
- recursive 2y ago
  Your user agent has different, more reliable ways of informing you of this.
arkh 2y ago
You don't HAVE TO have a cookie banner for cookies which don't require consent. Cookies not requiring consent : - "technical" cookies: for session, saving some user preferences (consenting to cookies or not, language etc.) - cookies used for load balancing or to protect against fraud - cookies used to save a cart or used to invoice some service - usage statistics cookies IF the data is anonymous Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.
- daveguy 2y ago
  But it's so much more effective to pretend like there are onerous requirements imposed by governments that interfere with the user experience. See: TikTok's early and unnecessary self-imposed, location-based shutdown with a pop-up message blaming the big bad government. Bonus points for ass kissing the easily manipulated current administration.
  - prerok 2y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand this. They complied with legal requirements a couple of hours before obligated to do so. Is my understanding of that situation wrong?
    - daveguy 2y ago
      TikTok was not required to restrict access to the app from devices in the US. Rather US companies (web hosting and app stores) were required to cease support. This means app stores like Google and Apple had to prevent downloads and installs (Apple still is). But the blanket shutdown of anyone with GPS coordinates within the US was not required. People were even still allowed to side-load the app where possible like in Android. So, the early and overly restrictive limitations from TikTok was for show and messaging to manipulate public opinion. Edit Reference: > If not sold within a year, the law would make it illegal for web-hosting services to support TikTok, and it would force Google and Apple to remove TikTok from app stores — rendering the app unusable with time. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-us https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-u...

martin_a 2y ago

That's true. Strictly technically necessary cookies do not need consent or even information with a banner. Guess it's nice to know, but probably not legally necessary.

high_na_euv 2y ago
>Guess it's nice to know It isnt, why should I care?
recursive 2y ago
Your user agent has different, more reliable ways of informing you of this.

arkh 2y ago

You don't HAVE TO have a cookie banner for cookies which don't require consent. Cookies not requiring consent : - "technical" cookies: for session, saving some user preferences (consenting to cookies or not, language etc.) - cookies used for load balancing or to protect against fraud - cookies used to save a cart or used to invoice some service - usage statistics cookies IF the data is anonymous Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.

daveguy 2y ago
But it's so much more effective to pretend like there are onerous requirements imposed by governments that interfere with the user experience. See: TikTok's early and unnecessary self-imposed, location-based shutdown with a pop-up message blaming the big bad government. Bonus points for ass kissing the easily manipulated current administration.
- prerok 2y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand this. They complied with legal requirements a couple of hours before obligated to do so. Is my understanding of that situation wrong?
  - daveguy 2y ago
    TikTok was not required to restrict access to the app from devices in the US. Rather US companies (web hosting and app stores) were required to cease support. This means app stores like Google and Apple had to prevent downloads and installs (Apple still is). But the blanket shutdown of anyone with GPS coordinates within the US was not required. People were even still allowed to side-load the app where possible like in Android. So, the early and overly restrictive limitations from TikTok was for show and messaging to manipulate public opinion. Edit Reference: > If not sold within a year, the law would make it illegal for web-hosting services to support TikTok, and it would force Google and Apple to remove TikTok from app stores — rendering the app unusable with time. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-us https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-u...