European Union Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders recently told German newspaper 'Welt am Sonntag' that the European Commission is aware of how annoying cookie consent banners have become...

European Union set to revise cookie law, admits cookie banners are annoying::undefined

  • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
    59·
    10 months ago

    A major political entity admitting mistake and correcting based on feedback. How refreshing.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
    33·
    10 months ago

    The actual EU documents say the complete opposite. They say that the cookie law is going nowhere, this new thing is a framework for easier compliance with the existing law for big business.

    From the letter issued by the EU Supervisory Authority to the Commission about this :

    While voluntary commitments [of companies to adhere to the GDPR] may be a useful tool, the pledging principles should by no means be used to circumvent legal obligations. In addition, undertaking voluntary commitments does not equate or guarantee compliance with the applicable data protection and privacy framework.

  • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    19·
    10 months ago

    The banners should stay. If a site doesn’t use cookies, you don’t get a banner. The sites choose for themselves if they want to use cookies and put up an obnoxious banner, or not use cookies.

    • them@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      10 months ago

      I think enforcing some universal API for this would be a decent compromise. This would allow browsers to handle the UI which means the user can set a global preference or set it per site. At the very least the UI would be uniform so you wouldn’t have to fight dark patterns trying to disable them.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I think what OP is saying that, yes, the cookie abuse should go for sure (I’m actually privvy of the “Legitimate interest” options.)

        But that if websites want to track you, then they have to be transparent about it - hence the banners. Wanna track me? Ask me for permission. Is it annoying? Tough luck! Are you losing users because of it? Well, boo-hoo! Remove the tracking and there you go. No banner. Everyone happy.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

            Correct. That’s what OP is saying. If websites want to use tracking cookies, they’ll have to deal with the consequence of being annoying to their visitors. I’m completely okay with that. Though I’d welcome an alternative.

            If websites were nicer about it, I would consider being tracked. So, a small banner consistently saying “Hey can we track you?” in which the default answer is “no” when you hit escape (as opposed to “WE ARE USING COOKIES TO TRACK YOU!!! CLICK SETTINGS TO DISABLE THIS!”), then I might click “yes” every now and then.

            • kebabslob@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              To quote republicans, if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, every day would be Xmas. There’s no way that’ll ever hold. Just like there’s no way video game companies will be less greedy, or box other corporation

  • ViscloReader@lemmy.worldEnglish
    171·
    10 months ago

    I trust they’ll do a good job focusing on privacy rather than outright going back to “no banner, cookies for everyone!”

  • pdxfed@lemmy.worldEnglish
    142·
    10 months ago

    Install privacy badge, turn on “automatically send do not track” and those things all just melt away when you go to a new site as it processes almost all sites automatically.

    • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      17·
      10 months ago

      The “do not track” is really just you asking them politely not to track you, they are not obligated to stop tracking…more often than not, it is completely ignored and they track you anyway.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        California’s regulations have teeth but there are some exclusions and exemptions, I guess like most laws it’ll only be followed if suing and getting damages is easy and results made public.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Yup, that’s where it’s the most valuable to not have to drag fingers around and whatnot, easier if you needed to deal with popup on PC with mouse and keyboard and whatnot.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    9·
    10 months ago

    There are no cookie banners, at least not nessesary ones. There is just a consent requirement for processing personal data.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
      22·
      10 months ago

      Um, what? Almost every consent banner I’ve seen has specifically asked about cookies, and usually nothing else.

      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        41·
        10 months ago

        This is a misconception many sites fall into. They really do not have to ask for just cookies, it’s like there were asking to use CSS or JavaScript :).

        • NoRodent@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          10 months ago

          I like my websites RAW, they’re not going to spy on me with those cascading styles and I do not want anything to interpret HTML for me, I will interpret it according to myself and not according to how some corporation wants. Wake up sheeple! /s