4 ms·

How is "Do Not Track" is a joke, but website presenting a button "Do not use cookies" is not? What's the difference?

anamexis 1y ago
For one, Do Not Track is on the client side and you just hope and pray that the server honors it, whereas cookie consent modals are something built by and placed in the website. I think you can reasonably assume that if a website went through the trouble of making such a modal (for legal compliance reasons), the functionality works (also for legal compliance reasons). And, you as the client can verify whether it works, and can choose not to store them regardless.
- zeroxfe 1y ago
  > And, you as the client can verify whether it works How do you do that? Cookies are typically opaque (encrypted or hashed) bags of bits.
  - anamexis 1y ago
    Just the presence or absence of the cookie.
    - echoangle 1y ago
      I would assume most websites would still set cookies even if you reject the consent, because the consent is only about not technically necessary cookies. Just because the website sets cookies doesn't tell you whether it respects you selection. Only if it doesn't set any cookies can you be sure, and I would assume that's a small minority of websites.
GuB-42 1y ago
It is ridiculous, but it is what you get when you have conflicting interests and broken legislation. The rule is that tracking has to be opt-in, so websites do it the way they are more likely to get people to opt in, and it is a cookie banner before you access the content. Do-not-track is opt-out, not opt-in, and in fact, it is not opt-anything since browsers started to set it to "1" by default without asking. There is no law forcing advertisers to honor that. I guess it could work the other way: if you set do-not-track to 0 (meaning "do-track"), which no browser does by default, make cookies auto-accept and do not show the banner. But then the law says that it should require no more actions to refuse consent than to consent (to counter those ridiculous "accept or uncheck 100 boxes" popups), so it would mean they would also have to honor do-not-track=1, which they don't want to. I don't know how legislation could be unbroken. Users don't want ads, don't want tracking, they just want the service they ask for and don't want to pay for it. Service providers want exactly the opposite. Also people need services and services need users. There is no solution that will satisfy everyone.
- runarberg 1y ago
  Labor laws are not set to satisfy everyone, they are set such that a company cannot use it’s outsized power to exploit their workers, and that workers have fair chance at negotiating a fair deal, despite holding less power. Similarly consumer protection laws—which the cookie banners are—are not set to satisfy everyone, they are set such that companies cannot use their outsized power to exploit their customers. A good consumer protection law will simply ban harmful behavior regardless of whether companies which engage in said harmful behavior want are satisfied with that ban or not. A good consumer protection law, will satisfy the user (or rather the general public) but it may satisfy the companies.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Good consumer protection laws are things like disclosure requirements or anti-tying rules that address information asymmetries or enable rather than restrict customer choice. Bad consumer protection laws try to pretend that trade offs don't exist. You don't want to see ads, that's fine, but now you either need to self-host that thing or pay someone else money to do it because they're no longer getting money from ads. There is no point in having an opt in for tracking. If the user can be deprived of something for not opting in (i.e. you can't use the service) then it's useless, and if they can't then the number of people who would purposely opt in is entirely negligible and you ought to stop beating around the bush and do a tracking ban. But don't pretend that's not going to mean less "free stuff". The problem is legislators are self-serving. They want to be seen doing something without actually forcing the trade off that would annihilate all of these companies, so instead they implement something compromised to claim they've done something even though they haven't actually done any good. Hence obnoxious cookie banners.
    - chowells 1y ago
      That whole argument assumes that you as a consumer can always find a product with exactly the features you want. Because that's a laughable fiction, there need to be laws with teeth to punish bad behaviors that nearly every product would indulge in otherwise. That means things like requiring sites to get permission to track, and punishing those that track users without permission. It's a good policy in theory, but it needs to be paired with good enforcement, and that's where things are currently lacking.

For one, Do Not Track is on the client side and you just hope and pray that the server honors it, whereas cookie consent modals are something built by and placed in the website. I think you can reasonably assume that if a website went through the trouble of making such a modal (for legal compliance reasons), the functionality works (also for legal compliance reasons). And, you as the client can verify whether it works, and can choose not to store them regardless.

zeroxfe 1y ago
> And, you as the client can verify whether it works How do you do that? Cookies are typically opaque (encrypted or hashed) bags of bits.
- anamexis 1y ago
  Just the presence or absence of the cookie.
  - echoangle 1y ago
    I would assume most websites would still set cookies even if you reject the consent, because the consent is only about not technically necessary cookies. Just because the website sets cookies doesn't tell you whether it respects you selection. Only if it doesn't set any cookies can you be sure, and I would assume that's a small minority of websites.

GuB-42 1y ago

It is ridiculous, but it is what you get when you have conflicting interests and broken legislation. The rule is that tracking has to be opt-in, so websites do it the way they are more likely to get people to opt in, and it is a cookie banner before you access the content. Do-not-track is opt-out, not opt-in, and in fact, it is not opt-anything since browsers started to set it to "1" by default without asking. There is no law forcing advertisers to honor that. I guess it could work the other way: if you set do-not-track to 0 (meaning "do-track"), which no browser does by default, make cookies auto-accept and do not show the banner. But then the law says that it should require no more actions to refuse consent than to consent (to counter those ridiculous "accept or uncheck 100 boxes" popups), so it would mean they would also have to honor do-not-track=1, which they don't want to. I don't know how legislation could be unbroken. Users don't want ads, don't want tracking, they just want the service they ask for and don't want to pay for it. Service providers want exactly the opposite. Also people need services and services need users. There is no solution that will satisfy everyone.

runarberg 1y ago
Labor laws are not set to satisfy everyone, they are set such that a company cannot use it’s outsized power to exploit their workers, and that workers have fair chance at negotiating a fair deal, despite holding less power. Similarly consumer protection laws—which the cookie banners are—are not set to satisfy everyone, they are set such that companies cannot use their outsized power to exploit their customers. A good consumer protection law will simply ban harmful behavior regardless of whether companies which engage in said harmful behavior want are satisfied with that ban or not. A good consumer protection law, will satisfy the user (or rather the general public) but it may satisfy the companies.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Good consumer protection laws are things like disclosure requirements or anti-tying rules that address information asymmetries or enable rather than restrict customer choice. Bad consumer protection laws try to pretend that trade offs don't exist. You don't want to see ads, that's fine, but now you either need to self-host that thing or pay someone else money to do it because they're no longer getting money from ads. There is no point in having an opt in for tracking. If the user can be deprived of something for not opting in (i.e. you can't use the service) then it's useless, and if they can't then the number of people who would purposely opt in is entirely negligible and you ought to stop beating around the bush and do a tracking ban. But don't pretend that's not going to mean less "free stuff". The problem is legislators are self-serving. They want to be seen doing something without actually forcing the trade off that would annihilate all of these companies, so instead they implement something compromised to claim they've done something even though they haven't actually done any good. Hence obnoxious cookie banners.
  - chowells 1y ago
    That whole argument assumes that you as a consumer can always find a product with exactly the features you want. Because that's a laughable fiction, there need to be laws with teeth to punish bad behaviors that nearly every product would indulge in otherwise. That means things like requiring sites to get permission to track, and punishing those that track users without permission. It's a good policy in theory, but it needs to be paired with good enforcement, and that's where things are currently lacking.