4 ms·

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

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.
- velik_m 13y ago
  Cookies are just ONE method, that's why the law is not limited to cookies, but instead refers to all client side saving technologies (of which the cookies are the most common). Your post is yet another fantastic demonstration why criticizing the EU, without knowing what you're talking about, is such a bad idea.
  - bolder88 13y ago
    I know precisely what I'm talking about. Still, I guess I should have been clearer - there are several "non client side" saving technologies which are outside the scope of this law, and make the law completely useless. Further though, I would criticise the EU whatever the content of this law. We do not need a law to enforce rules about a specific technology of HTTP. What the hell business is it of the EU? The EU is absolutely obsessed with writing up laws to invade into absolutely every area of our lives.
    - Maarten88 13y ago
      > The EU is absolutely obsessed with writing up laws to invade into absolutely every area of our lives. That is a funny way to frame it! Being European I, for one, welcome a government trying to protect me from the massive, for-profit, privacy invasion and user data trafficking that the internet business currently is. And, as said before, the "cookie law" applies to any form of user tracking and storing or exchanging user-specific data. You can't code around it. Sending visitor data to Google Analytics server-side could technically hide the cookie, but it would legally be exactly the same as using the cookie based client-side javascript.

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.

velik_m 13y ago
Cookies are just ONE method, that's why the law is not limited to cookies, but instead refers to all client side saving technologies (of which the cookies are the most common). Your post is yet another fantastic demonstration why criticizing the EU, without knowing what you're talking about, is such a bad idea.
- bolder88 13y ago
  I know precisely what I'm talking about. Still, I guess I should have been clearer - there are several "non client side" saving technologies which are outside the scope of this law, and make the law completely useless. Further though, I would criticise the EU whatever the content of this law. We do not need a law to enforce rules about a specific technology of HTTP. What the hell business is it of the EU? The EU is absolutely obsessed with writing up laws to invade into absolutely every area of our lives.
  - Maarten88 13y ago
    > The EU is absolutely obsessed with writing up laws to invade into absolutely every area of our lives. That is a funny way to frame it! Being European I, for one, welcome a government trying to protect me from the massive, for-profit, privacy invasion and user data trafficking that the internet business currently is. And, as said before, the "cookie law" applies to any form of user tracking and storing or exchanging user-specific data. You can't code around it. Sending visitor data to Google Analytics server-side could technically hide the cookie, but it would legally be exactly the same as using the cookie based client-side javascript.