6 ms·

Please stop repeating this nonsense. The GDPR never mentioned cookie banners. This is the industry‘s shitty solution to forcing users to consent with tracking.

by WA 1y ago

Please stop repeating this nonsense. The GDPR never mentioned cookie banners. This is the industry‘s shitty solution to forcing users to consent with tracking. You can run a perfectly fine website with zero cookie banners if you simply don’t track your users and don’t expose them to third parties that do track them. Hence, all websites implementing cookie banners are the culprits here, not the GDPR.

panstromek 1y ago
If the law incentivises bad behaviour, it's a bad law.
- tomgp 1y ago
  the behaviour was already bad (sharing your personal information with 1000s of “trusted partners”), companies just want to keep doing it even if it inconveniences their users.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  Is your base assumption that putting up a cookie banner is worse than silently stalking users without permission ?
  - bboygravity 1y ago
    Absolutely yes. I can block coockies using simple addons, which is WAY lower effort than clicking through a deliberate dark-pattern that is different on EVERY website (or using complex addons with lookup tables for every website).
    - Asraelite 1y ago
      It's not about cookies specifically, they're just one of the many ways you can be tracked. You can't realistically block fingerprinting without serious effort, and you can't block your IP without using a VPN (which causes a bunch of other problems with sites not serving you).
  - panstromek 1y ago
    That's a false dichotomy - clearly there's more options than these two. There's definitely a better way to address this issue. On the other hand, between those two, it arguably is worse, because we now live in worst of both worlds - we still get a ton of stalking but we now have those cookie banners on top of that.
- exe34 1y ago
  does the law incentivise bad behaviour here or greed?
- jillesvangurp 1y ago
  The laws necessitating cookie banners came into effect long before GDPR. That would be the 2002 EU ePrivacy Directive. The GDPR (2018) concerns the handling and storing of personal information, the mandatory disclosure of how this is done, and the mandatory right users to ask what data is being stored and deleting that data. There aren't any cookie banners in native apps. But they still need to comply with GDPR. And you can get into trouble for mishandling privacy sensitive information. That law has been pretty successful to the point where there have been debates in the US about adopting similar laws. The common US media company interpretation to declare their websites an abusive UX disaster zone and put their contempt and complete disregard for their main product (users) on full display is entirely on them and their sleazy lawyers trying to find ways where they can still do their sleazy business. This is made worse by incompetent web designers deciding that this is apparently "the way things should be done" without questioning that. Most cookie banners are just the result of their (mis)interpretation of the law, lazy copying of some shitty website they once saw, and the perceived need to provide lots of legal ass coverage for what under GDPR is flat out just not allowed at all. Worse, the jury is actually still out on whether the highly misleading language, dark patterns, etc. are actually not illegal in themselves. They might very well be. Lots of companies got some really bad advice regarding GDPR. And some EU companies have actually been fined for doing it wrong.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  Having to pay for train tickets incentivises people to jump ticket barriers. Is that a bad law? The only problem with GDPR is the lack of serious enforcement against data abusers and their political adverts (“cookie banners”)
  - pembrook 1y ago
    Terrible analogy. The correct analogy would be California’s toxic substance regulations. They’re vaguely worded and enforcement is applied randomly based on whatever company is getting bad press at the time. So virtually everything sold in California carries a sticker saying essentially that “this product may cause birth defects.” Even companies selling products that don’t contain any of these chemicals do so, out of fear of the asymmetric power wielded by the state. Do a majority of train passengers jump the ticket barriers because they are afraid they might get fined billions of euros if they don’t?
    - hdgvhicv 1y ago
      The majority of companies have cookie banners because they want to track and monetise their customers and hope they can trick them into agreeing
      - pembrook 1y ago
        I hate to confront you with reality, but this is just not true.
burnerthrow008 1y ago
So why do so many European government websites have cookie banners? See, for instance: https://www.info.gouv.fr https://www.info.gouv.fr
- troupo 1y ago
  Because you could sit down and read the GDPR in an afternoon, and actually understand it yourself. After all, you've had 9 years to do that.
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    You expect too much.
  - eviks 1y ago
    I challenge you to demonstrate the supposed understanding you have that would explain why that website is following "industry‘s shitty solution to forcing users to consent with tracking." (and not even each industry website does such stupid full page banners) instead of using non-shitty solutions.
    - troupo 1y ago
      It's a good question, which has a very obvious answer: even government websites are built by clueless people and/or marketers and/or using shitty tech. Which you can see when you click on "personalise" in the cookie banner. That's why GitHub reneged on their "no cookies policy" for example: they got taken over by shitty people with shitty tech: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for...
      - eviks 1y ago
        You've failed the challenge because your answer doesn't depend on wasting your afternoon to read and understand GDPR
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pembrook 1y ago
Please stop repeating this nonsense defense of poorly designed policy. When everybody is using it wrong, the problem isn’t “everybody.” The problem is your design. Cookie consent should be a centralized browser based setting and nothing more. And the default should be some middle ground compromise that both the most privacy obsessed people AND businesses are not happy with.
raffraffraff 1y ago
> You can run a perfectly fine website with zero cookie banners if you simply don’t track your users and don’t expose them to third parties that do track them. I run an extremely simple static website with some JavaScript that lets the user keep track of their state between visits. I have no way to access their cookie, and nothing on the website sends data to me (in fact, can't, since it's a static site running on Cloudflare pages). I never really thought about whether or not I need to add a cookie banner, I just... Didn't. Legally though... Do I need to?

by WA 1y ago

panstromek 1y ago

If the law incentivises bad behaviour, it's a bad law.

tomgp 1y ago
the behaviour was already bad (sharing your personal information with 1000s of “trusted partners”), companies just want to keep doing it even if it inconveniences their users.
makeitdouble 1y ago
Is your base assumption that putting up a cookie banner is worse than silently stalking users without permission ?
- bboygravity 1y ago
  Absolutely yes. I can block coockies using simple addons, which is WAY lower effort than clicking through a deliberate dark-pattern that is different on EVERY website (or using complex addons with lookup tables for every website).
  - Asraelite 1y ago
    It's not about cookies specifically, they're just one of the many ways you can be tracked. You can't realistically block fingerprinting without serious effort, and you can't block your IP without using a VPN (which causes a bunch of other problems with sites not serving you).
- panstromek 1y ago
  That's a false dichotomy - clearly there's more options than these two. There's definitely a better way to address this issue. On the other hand, between those two, it arguably is worse, because we now live in worst of both worlds - we still get a ton of stalking but we now have those cookie banners on top of that.
exe34 1y ago
does the law incentivise bad behaviour here or greed?
jillesvangurp 1y ago
The laws necessitating cookie banners came into effect long before GDPR. That would be the 2002 EU ePrivacy Directive. The GDPR (2018) concerns the handling and storing of personal information, the mandatory disclosure of how this is done, and the mandatory right users to ask what data is being stored and deleting that data. There aren't any cookie banners in native apps. But they still need to comply with GDPR. And you can get into trouble for mishandling privacy sensitive information. That law has been pretty successful to the point where there have been debates in the US about adopting similar laws. The common US media company interpretation to declare their websites an abusive UX disaster zone and put their contempt and complete disregard for their main product (users) on full display is entirely on them and their sleazy lawyers trying to find ways where they can still do their sleazy business. This is made worse by incompetent web designers deciding that this is apparently "the way things should be done" without questioning that. Most cookie banners are just the result of their (mis)interpretation of the law, lazy copying of some shitty website they once saw, and the perceived need to provide lots of legal ass coverage for what under GDPR is flat out just not allowed at all. Worse, the jury is actually still out on whether the highly misleading language, dark patterns, etc. are actually not illegal in themselves. They might very well be. Lots of companies got some really bad advice regarding GDPR. And some EU companies have actually been fined for doing it wrong.
hdgvhicv 1y ago
Having to pay for train tickets incentivises people to jump ticket barriers. Is that a bad law? The only problem with GDPR is the lack of serious enforcement against data abusers and their political adverts (“cookie banners”)
- pembrook 1y ago
  Terrible analogy. The correct analogy would be California’s toxic substance regulations. They’re vaguely worded and enforcement is applied randomly based on whatever company is getting bad press at the time. So virtually everything sold in California carries a sticker saying essentially that “this product may cause birth defects.” Even companies selling products that don’t contain any of these chemicals do so, out of fear of the asymmetric power wielded by the state. Do a majority of train passengers jump the ticket barriers because they are afraid they might get fined billions of euros if they don’t?
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    The majority of companies have cookie banners because they want to track and monetise their customers and hope they can trick them into agreeing
    - pembrook 1y ago
      I hate to confront you with reality, but this is just not true.

burnerthrow008 1y ago

So why do so many European government websites have cookie banners? See, for instance: https://www.info.gouv.fr https://www.info.gouv.fr

troupo 1y ago
Because you could sit down and read the GDPR in an afternoon, and actually understand it yourself. After all, you've had 9 years to do that.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  You expect too much.
- eviks 1y ago
  I challenge you to demonstrate the supposed understanding you have that would explain why that website is following "industry‘s shitty solution to forcing users to consent with tracking." (and not even each industry website does such stupid full page banners) instead of using non-shitty solutions.
  - troupo 1y ago
    It's a good question, which has a very obvious answer: even government websites are built by clueless people and/or marketers and/or using shitty tech. Which you can see when you click on "personalise" in the cookie banner. That's why GitHub reneged on their "no cookies policy" for example: they got taken over by shitty people with shitty tech: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for...
    - eviks 1y ago
      You've failed the challenge because your answer doesn't depend on wasting your afternoon to read and understand GDPR
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

pembrook 1y ago

Please stop repeating this nonsense defense of poorly designed policy. When everybody is using it wrong, the problem isn’t “everybody.” The problem is your design. Cookie consent should be a centralized browser based setting and nothing more. And the default should be some middle ground compromise that both the most privacy obsessed people AND businesses are not happy with.

raffraffraff 1y ago

> You can run a perfectly fine website with zero cookie banners if you simply don’t track your users and don’t expose them to third parties that do track them. I run an extremely simple static website with some JavaScript that lets the user keep track of their state between visits. I have no way to access their cookie, and nothing on the website sends data to me (in fact, can't, since it's a static site running on Cloudflare pages). I never really thought about whether or not I need to add a cookie banner, I just... Didn't. Legally though... Do I need to?