3 ms·
The cookie laws and GDPR are hampered by malicious compliance, sure, but also outright intentional non-compliance. What's needed is more efficient oversight and
by Lorkki 2mo ago
The cookie laws and GDPR are hampered by malicious compliance, sure, but also outright intentional non-compliance. What's needed is more efficient oversight and enforcement.
- theoreticalmal 2mo agoHow would more efficient compliance help the constant annoying pop ups?
- setopt 2mo agoAccording to the rules, accepting or refusing cookies should be equally difficult. Making them both difficult makes people not use your site, so the incentive should be to make both options easy if you follow the rules. Malicious compliance is to make cookie acceptance much easier than refusal. Lack of oversight doesn’t punish this. Now, the incentive is to make life hard for people who decline cookies. That results in more annoying pop-ups.
- ffsm8 2mo agoalso, session cookies for eg login and error tracing etc dont actually need a banner. you only need to use it if youre participating in the internet stalking behaviour by integrating eg google analytics and similar integrations
- kevincox 2mo ago> Malicious compliance is to make cookie acceptance much easier than refusal. That isn't malicious compliance, it is just non-compliance. If the equally difficult rule wasn't there then it would be malicious compliance.
- ForHackernews 2mo agoYou are not required to present an annoying banner to the user. You could simply honor user-agents' DO NOT TRACK header and silently avoid setting tracking cookies and that would comply with the law.