4 ms·

> But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear... Oftentimes the reject flow is substantially more annoying than the ac

> But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear... Oftentimes the reject flow is substantially more annoying than the accept flow. I click reject myself when it's an option, but I can absolutely understand how people might get conditioned to click accept when clicking reject might result in more popups.

thom 2mo ago
A lot of UK sites (Reach local news stuff) now explicitly say take cookies or pay, which tbh I always thought was illegal.
- roelschroeven 2mo ago
  It is illegal, but compliance is not enforced to the degree that it should. Companies get away with a lot of GDPR infractions, unfortunately.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  The UK is somewhat famously no longer part of the EU (you may have heard of a thing called "Brexit" a few years back). However the UK does have its own GDPR regulation (see: <https://www.gov.uk/data-protection https://www.gov.uk/data-protection>), though my understanding is that it may be less strict in requiring equivalence between "accept" and "reject" actions. (I may be wrong on this.) UK sites accessed from the EU would have to be under EU GDPR compliance.
- xp84 2mo ago
  It's wild to me that anyone thinks that would be a reasonable law (whether or not it is law, I have no clue, I don't live in UK or EU). If you made a website and you said "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or sign a name, any name you wish, in my guestbook" what business is it of the government to say "No, this random person refuses to pay or sign the book, but Thom, you have to let them see all your articles anyway." Note that I used "sign any name" as the metaphor, not "show ID," since it is trivial to not allow any important information exchange if you simply delete the cookies yourself, which is easy to configure a browser to do. The end-user has the choice, if it's so important to them, to configure their browser. Even Chrome can be configured for which sites to allow cookies, which to disallow, and which to clear when the browser closes (the smart choice, since accepting them and throwing them away soon after is the undetectable option that accomplishes your main aim).
  - thom 2mo ago
    Allowing bad actors to act badly against all but the most sophisticated users is exactly where lawmakers should be stepping in. Sorry you find that controversial.
    - xp84 2mo ago
      We ask more sophistication of drivers to understand the rules of right of way than we would be asking of users to hit Settings -> Privacy and Cookies and read the plain language there. Sorry that you need the government to "help" people in this way, by forcing other people to give them free things.
      - kalleboo 2mo ago
        Are you proposing a licensing scheme to use the internet?
        xp84 2mo ago
        No, I'm just saying that it's okay to burden humans with the responsibility to learn a few basic ideas about how to operate their own computers if they want to control their data privacy. Simple, easy tools are already there, such as the Clear Browsing Data menu item in Chrome, Edge, and Safari. For more complicated intents, the browser settings are no more complicated to navigate than the actual customization UI in the CMPs, anyway.
        kalleboo 2mo ago
        Then I don't understand the driver analogy. Drivers are forced to take lessons and get licensed for the precise reason that we know people can't take the responsibility on their own. Clearing browser data is anything but easy for people who aren't certain what is "browser data". Is this going to delete all my google sheets? Those are in the browser. And it's not a bad question, some apps actually use IndexedDB or whatever to store user data.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  They're in UK, not EU, and it has a different law.
  - account42 2mo ago
    UK GDPR is simmilar to the EU one and German news websites do the same thing in the EU.

thom 2mo ago

A lot of UK sites (Reach local news stuff) now explicitly say take cookies or pay, which tbh I always thought was illegal.

roelschroeven 2mo ago
It is illegal, but compliance is not enforced to the degree that it should. Companies get away with a lot of GDPR infractions, unfortunately.
dredmorbius 2mo ago
The UK is somewhat famously no longer part of the EU (you may have heard of a thing called "Brexit" a few years back). However the UK does have its own GDPR regulation (see: <https://www.gov.uk/data-protection https://www.gov.uk/data-protection>), though my understanding is that it may be less strict in requiring equivalence between "accept" and "reject" actions. (I may be wrong on this.) UK sites accessed from the EU would have to be under EU GDPR compliance.
xp84 2mo ago
It's wild to me that anyone thinks that would be a reasonable law (whether or not it is law, I have no clue, I don't live in UK or EU). If you made a website and you said "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or sign a name, any name you wish, in my guestbook" what business is it of the government to say "No, this random person refuses to pay or sign the book, but Thom, you have to let them see all your articles anyway." Note that I used "sign any name" as the metaphor, not "show ID," since it is trivial to not allow any important information exchange if you simply delete the cookies yourself, which is easy to configure a browser to do. The end-user has the choice, if it's so important to them, to configure their browser. Even Chrome can be configured for which sites to allow cookies, which to disallow, and which to clear when the browser closes (the smart choice, since accepting them and throwing them away soon after is the undetectable option that accomplishes your main aim).
- thom 2mo ago
  Allowing bad actors to act badly against all but the most sophisticated users is exactly where lawmakers should be stepping in. Sorry you find that controversial.
  - xp84 2mo ago
    We ask more sophistication of drivers to understand the rules of right of way than we would be asking of users to hit Settings -> Privacy and Cookies and read the plain language there. Sorry that you need the government to "help" people in this way, by forcing other people to give them free things.
    - kalleboo 2mo ago
      Are you proposing a licensing scheme to use the internet?
      - xp84 2mo ago
        No, I'm just saying that it's okay to burden humans with the responsibility to learn a few basic ideas about how to operate their own computers if they want to control their data privacy. Simple, easy tools are already there, such as the Clear Browsing Data menu item in Chrome, Edge, and Safari. For more complicated intents, the browser settings are no more complicated to navigate than the actual customization UI in the CMPs, anyway.
        kalleboo 2mo ago
        Then I don't understand the driver analogy. Drivers are forced to take lessons and get licensed for the precise reason that we know people can't take the responsibility on their own. Clearing browser data is anything but easy for people who aren't certain what is "browser data". Is this going to delete all my google sheets? Those are in the browser. And it's not a bad question, some apps actually use IndexedDB or whatever to store user data.
inigyou 2mo ago
They're in UK, not EU, and it has a different law.
- account42 2mo ago
  UK GDPR is simmilar to the EU one and German news websites do the same thing in the EU.