6 ms·

Yes but as soon as you use Google Analytics, you need to include the notice. As a EU citizen, I think this example shows how stupid laws can come out of good i

Yes but as soon as you use Google Analytics, you need to include the notice. As a EU citizen, I think this example shows how stupid laws can come out of good intentions. Why stupid? Because, no matter what the intentions were, the only practical effect is creating a nuisance for web users, who quickly learn to ignore the consent requests.

0x0 11y ago
I never understood why they didn't force the requirement onto browser makers instead of website operators. Then users could actually enforce their cookie choice by opting out, instead of having to trust every website to be honest in their cookie use.
- kiiski 11y ago
  Browsers already have the ability to block cookies and at least Firefox allows overriding the choice for individual sites without needing any plugins.
  - 0x0 11y ago
    That much is obvious. It's a shame the lawmakers didn't go in that direction.
- tfgg 11y ago
  And browsers have had such options (block all cookies, prompt to accept, etc.) built in to them since the very beginning of cookies, except everyone turned them off because they were annoying! So now websites had to add them! And they are just as annoying! ARGH! A more useful directive would have been some sort of legally-backed "coloured cookie" type system, where a cookie has to declare for what purpose (session, internal analytics, adverts, site-to-site tracking, etc.) it's for, so browsers can then selectively block those categories. That would be useful, because then you could punish people who lie about the purpose of their cookie.
  - 0x0 11y ago
    Sounds like the misguided P3P "standard" that IE implemented which AFAIK only resulted in web developers copypasting a HTTP header they don't understand just to get facebook widgets working.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    I couldn't work out why people didn't just use the browser cookie controls. It seems shortsighted to force the server to bundle a message down the wire to me - the browser should tell me that. What if I am a dumb client like telnet that's just done a GET? Do we also need servers to inform us in large letters that they're making a note of our IP address and adding it to their logs? That they're using our referral info and browser details (I'm using Chromium on a Mac!)? That they'll use those details for analysis? Weirdly people have switched to Google analytics instead of just looking at the server logs (like awstats from yesteryear). Do we need messages telling us that the ISP is throttling us or logging too? That I'm using PPP or something? It's all daft. Hopefully this madness doesn't make it into mobile telephone calls - "your location can be triangulated from our phone towers"; "you're using GSM which has weak encryption and can be eavesdropped" etc. etc. We should have the option of authorising all the GET requests it makes too I feel! That'd keep websites from loading too much (and suffering website bloat, as the average website data size has been climbing massively due to all that JavaScript)
hellbanner 11y ago
I don't think it's a nuisance - it tells me they are trying to run analytics on their site.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Except you still see it if you block the analytics ... :(
mbq 11y ago
The execution could be better, but it is certainly not a stupid idea. GA code is esentially a concealed, unconditional transmit of the user data to a third party, and allowing this third party to intercept and modify your communication; pretty high price for a few colorful piecharts, and certainly something that deserves a disclaimer.
- tombrossman 11y ago
  GA's Terms & Conditions make disclosing use of the product mandatory but this has to be the most widely ignored and unenforced rule I've ever seen. If a lawyer somewhere figures out how to parlay this into a class-action/privacy issue (maybe Europe?) they are going to be filthy rich since this is so widespread. Even government websites use GA and fail to disclose it as required.
M2Ys4U 11y ago
> Yes but as soon as you use Google Analytics, you need to include the notice. Good. That's the entire point. The law is there to notify users when their web usage is being tracked, and that's precisely what Google Analytics is for.
- d0ugie 11y ago
  So how do you feel about Piwik?
tripzilch 11y ago
The worst part is, since I care enough about cookies and privacy that I set up my browsers to delete cookies on exit (minus a small whitelist for sites I prefer to stay logged on to), the sites displaying these notices can't even remember that I already dismissed the notice. (assuming I'd only see the notice once if I'd keep my cookies, not actually sure if that would be the case, nor do I care to find out ...)
- danmaz74 11y ago
  Well, that's pretty ironic I guess!

0x0 11y ago

I never understood why they didn't force the requirement onto browser makers instead of website operators. Then users could actually enforce their cookie choice by opting out, instead of having to trust every website to be honest in their cookie use.

kiiski 11y ago
Browsers already have the ability to block cookies and at least Firefox allows overriding the choice for individual sites without needing any plugins.
- 0x0 11y ago
  That much is obvious. It's a shame the lawmakers didn't go in that direction.
tfgg 11y ago
And browsers have had such options (block all cookies, prompt to accept, etc.) built in to them since the very beginning of cookies, except everyone turned them off because they were annoying! So now websites had to add them! And they are just as annoying! ARGH! A more useful directive would have been some sort of legally-backed "coloured cookie" type system, where a cookie has to declare for what purpose (session, internal analytics, adverts, site-to-site tracking, etc.) it's for, so browsers can then selectively block those categories. That would be useful, because then you could punish people who lie about the purpose of their cookie.
- 0x0 11y ago
  Sounds like the misguided P3P "standard" that IE implemented which AFAIK only resulted in web developers copypasting a HTTP header they don't understand just to get facebook widgets working.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  I couldn't work out why people didn't just use the browser cookie controls. It seems shortsighted to force the server to bundle a message down the wire to me - the browser should tell me that. What if I am a dumb client like telnet that's just done a GET? Do we also need servers to inform us in large letters that they're making a note of our IP address and adding it to their logs? That they're using our referral info and browser details (I'm using Chromium on a Mac!)? That they'll use those details for analysis? Weirdly people have switched to Google analytics instead of just looking at the server logs (like awstats from yesteryear). Do we need messages telling us that the ISP is throttling us or logging too? That I'm using PPP or something? It's all daft. Hopefully this madness doesn't make it into mobile telephone calls - "your location can be triangulated from our phone towers"; "you're using GSM which has weak encryption and can be eavesdropped" etc. etc. We should have the option of authorising all the GET requests it makes too I feel! That'd keep websites from loading too much (and suffering website bloat, as the average website data size has been climbing massively due to all that JavaScript)

hellbanner 11y ago

I don't think it's a nuisance - it tells me they are trying to run analytics on their site.

tripzilch 11y ago
Except you still see it if you block the analytics ... :(

mbq 11y ago

The execution could be better, but it is certainly not a stupid idea. GA code is esentially a concealed, unconditional transmit of the user data to a third party, and allowing this third party to intercept and modify your communication; pretty high price for a few colorful piecharts, and certainly something that deserves a disclaimer.

tombrossman 11y ago
GA's Terms & Conditions make disclosing use of the product mandatory but this has to be the most widely ignored and unenforced rule I've ever seen. If a lawyer somewhere figures out how to parlay this into a class-action/privacy issue (maybe Europe?) they are going to be filthy rich since this is so widespread. Even government websites use GA and fail to disclose it as required.

M2Ys4U 11y ago

> Yes but as soon as you use Google Analytics, you need to include the notice. Good. That's the entire point. The law is there to notify users when their web usage is being tracked, and that's precisely what Google Analytics is for.

d0ugie 11y ago
So how do you feel about Piwik?

tripzilch 11y ago

The worst part is, since I care enough about cookies and privacy that I set up my browsers to delete cookies on exit (minus a small whitelist for sites I prefer to stay logged on to), the sites displaying these notices can't even remember that I already dismissed the notice. (assuming I'd only see the notice once if I'd keep my cookies, not actually sure if that would be the case, nor do I care to find out ...)

danmaz74 11y ago
Well, that's pretty ironic I guess!