6 ms·

This is one of the most stupid and anti-user laws on the books. Worse, it's probably the only law I've ever seen have an instant and devastating effect on the U

This is one of the most stupid and anti-user laws on the books. Worse, it's probably the only law I've ever seen have an instant and devastating effect on the UX of a swathe of websites. Hopefully they are going to start suing people regularly (unlike the inaction being taken in the UK) so that business wakes up to this stupid law and finally gets it repealed, the sooner the better.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kintamanimatt 13y ago
Can it really be repealed by the Spanish government if they're required to enact such a law as a result of an EU Directive? They could take the UK's approach of turning a blind eye, but I tend to feel it's wrong for a country to pick and choose which laws to enforce.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Well this is the EU and countrys ignore or adjust EU directives to suit all the time - Spains implementation of TUPE is a total FY to the eu has no relation to the Spirit of the Directive. Italy also does this a lot remember the you tube fiasco where they ignored EU law.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  The EU is a set of treaties between sovereign states. The Parliament in each state supercedes the EU bodies (commission and parliament namely). So, yes they can repeal the law. It violates the treaty, and they'll be fined, but that's about it.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    Can Spain even afford such a fine?
    - sergiosgc 13y ago
      Afford? Yes. Willing, not really in this case. The fine is high enough to hurt, but low enough to be supportable if a country really wishes to violate the directive. Think of a ballpark in the order of 20 million euros per year (fines are paid until the directive gets transposed into national law).
freehunter 13y ago
I find it really annoying as a non-EU citizen using a site in a non-EU country but still having to dismiss these warnings even on mobile devices (where it can be much harder to hit the link/button). The Internet doesn't care what country I'm from, so why are we designing it that way? The same goes for non-US content restrictions as well.
- corin_ 13y ago
  > The Internet doesn't care what country I'm from, so why are we designing it that way? The same goes for non-US content restrictions as well. Because the two other options are either to have no laws around the internet, or to designate one organisation (or one country) to define and enforce laws.
  - __david__ 13y ago
    I'll take the former, please.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      No laws whatsoever? So someone can buy childporn.com and charge people for access? I know issues like child safety are often used for over-reaching legislation that's bad for everybody, but that doesn't mean there aren't also valid reasons for governments to be involved here. Just because the current implementation is often shitty, it doesn't mean we should go the exact opposite way. The same way that disliking things like anti-terrorism legislation don't make most of us think "we need to get rid of all laws".
      - crististm 13y ago
        Think of the children man... I wondered how long until I see this argument
        corin_ 13y ago
        In some limited cases it's a perfectly valid argument. I'm against most of the current internet legislation, and hate seeing children used as a reason for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any good laws. Take my specific example. If someone hosts a childporn.com that is exactly like any legal porn website but with children, should that be legal or illegal?
malandrew 13y ago
The best balance would be to present the user with a page that lists all the things the site would like to track and let the user opt out of anything they don't want tracked. Some people may value a "degraded" experience over being tracked. I put "degraded" in quotes because it's often a degraded experience for the company's profits not the end-user. Please, give us some examples of how this is "devastating" for the UX of a swathe of websites.
- claudius 13y ago
  > The best balance would be to present the user with a page that lists all the things the site would like to track and let the user opt in to any way in which they would like to be tracked. FTFY.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    That's not a balance. That makes the cookies effectively unusable since 99% of people stick with defaults, and even more so in this case because they'll see the boilerplate so often that a spinal reflex will kick in before they even see the box with their conscious brain. This will, in turn force all websites to force users to accept the tracking in order to use the service.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      Ok, better option. Give the user four big buttons. (1) "Deselect all tracking options. I will choose the ones I want" (2) "Select all tracking optimal user experience, but don't opt me into additional tracking metrics for your use" (3) "Opt me into all tracking options, both those for an optimal user experience and ones that help you improve the service." (4) "Give me the most commonly selected options by previously registered users" (1) is privacy mode. (2) is privacy mode with some concessions for optimal experience. (3) is okay I'll help you guys out. and (4) is I trust the wisdom of the crowds.
- bolder88 13y ago
  Endless popups, pop downs, moving content around. The absolute worst is pages that create a 'popup' at the top and move the content down just as you're about to click something. So you end up clicking something else. And for what!? To scare the user about cookies? We had the scare about cookies in the 90s when they were explained as "bits of code that websites can infect your machine with". Cookies are ONE method websites can use to track you. If you click "don't use cookies", the website will just use another method to track you. It's absolutely trivial to bypass. And it's trivial for any user to configure their browser to reject cookies for any website they wish to. So what has been achieved by this idiotic law? Absolutely nothing. It's yet another fantastic demonstration why the EU is such a bad idea.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kintamanimatt 13y ago

Can it really be repealed by the Spanish government if they're required to enact such a law as a result of an EU Directive? They could take the UK's approach of turning a blind eye, but I tend to feel it's wrong for a country to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

walshemj 13y ago
Well this is the EU and countrys ignore or adjust EU directives to suit all the time - Spains implementation of TUPE is a total FY to the eu has no relation to the Spirit of the Directive. Italy also does this a lot remember the you tube fiasco where they ignored EU law.
sergiosgc 13y ago
The EU is a set of treaties between sovereign states. The Parliament in each state supercedes the EU bodies (commission and parliament namely). So, yes they can repeal the law. It violates the treaty, and they'll be fined, but that's about it.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Can Spain even afford such a fine?
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    Afford? Yes. Willing, not really in this case. The fine is high enough to hurt, but low enough to be supportable if a country really wishes to violate the directive. Think of a ballpark in the order of 20 million euros per year (fines are paid until the directive gets transposed into national law).

freehunter 13y ago

I find it really annoying as a non-EU citizen using a site in a non-EU country but still having to dismiss these warnings even on mobile devices (where it can be much harder to hit the link/button). The Internet doesn't care what country I'm from, so why are we designing it that way? The same goes for non-US content restrictions as well.

corin_ 13y ago
> The Internet doesn't care what country I'm from, so why are we designing it that way? The same goes for non-US content restrictions as well. Because the two other options are either to have no laws around the internet, or to designate one organisation (or one country) to define and enforce laws.
- __david__ 13y ago
  I'll take the former, please.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    No laws whatsoever? So someone can buy childporn.com and charge people for access? I know issues like child safety are often used for over-reaching legislation that's bad for everybody, but that doesn't mean there aren't also valid reasons for governments to be involved here. Just because the current implementation is often shitty, it doesn't mean we should go the exact opposite way. The same way that disliking things like anti-terrorism legislation don't make most of us think "we need to get rid of all laws".
    - crististm 13y ago
      Think of the children man... I wondered how long until I see this argument
      - corin_ 13y ago
        In some limited cases it's a perfectly valid argument. I'm against most of the current internet legislation, and hate seeing children used as a reason for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any good laws. Take my specific example. If someone hosts a childporn.com that is exactly like any legal porn website but with children, should that be legal or illegal?

malandrew 13y ago

The best balance would be to present the user with a page that lists all the things the site would like to track and let the user opt out of anything they don't want tracked. Some people may value a "degraded" experience over being tracked. I put "degraded" in quotes because it's often a degraded experience for the company's profits not the end-user. Please, give us some examples of how this is "devastating" for the UX of a swathe of websites.

claudius 13y ago
> The best balance would be to present the user with a page that lists all the things the site would like to track and let the user opt in to any way in which they would like to be tracked. FTFY.
- dasil003 13y ago
  That's not a balance. That makes the cookies effectively unusable since 99% of people stick with defaults, and even more so in this case because they'll see the boilerplate so often that a spinal reflex will kick in before they even see the box with their conscious brain. This will, in turn force all websites to force users to accept the tracking in order to use the service.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Ok, better option. Give the user four big buttons. (1) "Deselect all tracking options. I will choose the ones I want" (2) "Select all tracking optimal user experience, but don't opt me into additional tracking metrics for your use" (3) "Opt me into all tracking options, both those for an optimal user experience and ones that help you improve the service." (4) "Give me the most commonly selected options by previously registered users" (1) is privacy mode. (2) is privacy mode with some concessions for optimal experience. (3) is okay I'll help you guys out. and (4) is I trust the wisdom of the crowds.
bolder88 13y ago
Endless popups, pop downs, moving content around. The absolute worst is pages that create a 'popup' at the top and move the content down just as you're about to click something. So you end up clicking something else. And for what!? To scare the user about cookies? We had the scare about cookies in the 90s when they were explained as "bits of code that websites can infect your machine with". Cookies are ONE method websites can use to track you. If you click "don't use cookies", the website will just use another method to track you. It's absolutely trivial to bypass. And it's trivial for any user to configure their browser to reject cookies for any website they wish to. So what has been achieved by this idiotic law? Absolutely nothing. It's yet another fantastic demonstration why the EU is such a bad idea.