6 ms·

I fail to understand why politicians thought the cookie dialogue was a good idea. Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective

by shasts 4y ago

I fail to understand why politicians thought the cookie dialogue was a good idea. Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective.

barbazoo 4y ago
Was it policy prescribing the cookie banner or was the cookie banner just the implementation of a policy?
jonas-w 4y ago
> Adds almost nothing to benefit user[...] Care to elaborate why you think so?
- shasts 4y ago
  The websites make it so hard to reject cookies or selectively accept to make the website work for your benefit. Quick google search about the effects of the law shows various studies done so far to assess the positive impact it brought. https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-notices-are-meaningless-or-manipulative-study-finds https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-not... I think the USB-C mandate also going to result in a similar implementation by companies. Apple already setting the trend by going to have only wireless charging for phones. https://youtu.be/jO83ARJiOfQ https://youtu.be/jO83ARJiOfQ
  - eitland 4y ago
    > The websites make it so hard to reject cookies or selectively accept to make the website work for your benefit. Either I misread you or this is pure nonsense. I have read through many of these popups and there is no way 200-700 trackers are there for my benefit.
  - jonas-w 4y ago
    A year or two ago i would have kind of agreed with you. But currently 70%-90% (based on what i see everyday) are just one click to reject everything.
eitland 4y ago
Then fines like this come along and will force Microsoft to simplify the ux of this down to where it should be: It should be absolutely trivial to reject tracking unless you actively want it.
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> cookie dialogue (...) Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective. It's misinterpretation of the letter of the law (there's no such thing as a cookie dialog/banner) and the spirit of the law (disabling tracking should be easy default choice, not the convoluted, hard choice).
legulere 4y ago
Cookie banners are simply the most annoying and spiteful way to fulfill the EU regulations. You don’t need to block access to the website until you accepted tracking. If you don’t track you don’t need any thing at all.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Banners don't block access.
  - cbo100 4y ago
    Probably not strictly by the letter of law. But practically, when they take up a good 2/3 of the screen and are not dismissible without making a choice then they do.
jacquesm 4y ago
Politicians never thought the 'cookie dialogue was a good idea'. Politicians aimed to reduce the use of cookies for tracking without consent. That the industry responded by either ignoring the directive and/or by harassing their users to give that consent forcibly isn't on the politicians but on the owners/operators of those websites.
- hericium 4y ago
  Lawmaking is like chess. Politcians and their lawyers should anticipate what bigcorp will do in response to new law and inject countermeasures before the law is introduced. Cookie law was lame af from the beginning and did nothing but annoyed end-users.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Lawmaking is like chess where you are paid to throw the match but you have to make it look believable.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I disagree. If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law. Take into consideration that these companies annoyed their users but blamed it on the politicians, which is pretty irrational behavior. And here you are, still blaming the politicians. As a result the GDPR came into being which is far more strict, it too is being blamed as the reason why many companies have now decided to shut down service altogether as the easiest solution to comply, when obviously the alternative would be to simply stop tracking your users.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law. Are you saying that before the 2002 ePrivacy Directive came out most people who thought about this wouldn't have predicted that companies would put up cookie banners?
csydas 4y ago
That's because the cookie dialogues as they are now were never part of the original GDPR and other privacy related bills/acts/whatever. GDPR requires that consent is as easy to withdraw as it is to give. [0] That companies have dragged their feet and gone kicking and screaming with cookie banners is irrelevant to the actual law; the EU needs to start cracking down more and more on this to show what it actually means, since it's quite clear that companies are not going to willingly comply with the data consent laws. So don't blame the politicians on this one, they never gave any requirement for such banners, and in fact specifically mentioned that it must be simple to revoke/deny consent. Companies that didn't want to comply with GDPR and other privacy laws decided to make it as painful as possible for you and I and blame it on the privacy rules. [0] - https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/
janalsncm 4y ago
The alternative is unmitigated surveillance capitalism. Most people don’t want to be spied on.
the8472 4y ago
Things that are technically necessary to facilitate functions requested by the user like shopping carts or login tokens are exempt under clause 22 of the ePrivacy directive. Don't set any other cookies and you won't need to ask for consent. Politicians aren't forcing websites to set more than the strictly necessary cookies, which require consent. It's marketing/advertising that does.
ilyt 4y ago
Cookie law does need revision, but GDPR is much better written

by shasts 4y ago

I fail to understand why politicians thought the cookie dialogue was a good idea. Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective.

barbazoo 4y ago

Was it policy prescribing the cookie banner or was the cookie banner just the implementation of a policy?

jonas-w 4y ago

> Adds almost nothing to benefit user[...] Care to elaborate why you think so?

shasts 4y ago
The websites make it so hard to reject cookies or selectively accept to make the website work for your benefit. Quick google search about the effects of the law shows various studies done so far to assess the positive impact it brought. https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-notices-are-meaningless-or-manipulative-study-finds https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/10/most-eu-cookie-consent-not... I think the USB-C mandate also going to result in a similar implementation by companies. Apple already setting the trend by going to have only wireless charging for phones. https://youtu.be/jO83ARJiOfQ https://youtu.be/jO83ARJiOfQ
- eitland 4y ago
  > The websites make it so hard to reject cookies or selectively accept to make the website work for your benefit. Either I misread you or this is pure nonsense. I have read through many of these popups and there is no way 200-700 trackers are there for my benefit.
- jonas-w 4y ago
  A year or two ago i would have kind of agreed with you. But currently 70%-90% (based on what i see everyday) are just one click to reject everything.

eitland 4y ago

Then fines like this come along and will force Microsoft to simplify the ux of this down to where it should be: It should be absolutely trivial to reject tracking unless you actively want it.

ElectricalUnion 4y ago

> cookie dialogue (...) Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective. It's misinterpretation of the letter of the law (there's no such thing as a cookie dialog/banner) and the spirit of the law (disabling tracking should be easy default choice, not the convoluted, hard choice).

legulere 4y ago

Cookie banners are simply the most annoying and spiteful way to fulfill the EU regulations. You don’t need to block access to the website until you accepted tracking. If you don’t track you don’t need any thing at all.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Banners don't block access.
- cbo100 4y ago
  Probably not strictly by the letter of law. But practically, when they take up a good 2/3 of the screen and are not dismissible without making a choice then they do.

jacquesm 4y ago

Politicians never thought the 'cookie dialogue was a good idea'. Politicians aimed to reduce the use of cookies for tracking without consent. That the industry responded by either ignoring the directive and/or by harassing their users to give that consent forcibly isn't on the politicians but on the owners/operators of those websites.

hericium 4y ago
Lawmaking is like chess. Politcians and their lawyers should anticipate what bigcorp will do in response to new law and inject countermeasures before the law is introduced. Cookie law was lame af from the beginning and did nothing but annoyed end-users.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Lawmaking is like chess where you are paid to throw the match but you have to make it look believable.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  I disagree. If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law. Take into consideration that these companies annoyed their users but blamed it on the politicians, which is pretty irrational behavior. And here you are, still blaming the politicians. As a result the GDPR came into being which is far more strict, it too is being blamed as the reason why many companies have now decided to shut down service altogether as the easiest solution to comply, when obviously the alternative would be to simply stop tracking your users.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law. Are you saying that before the 2002 ePrivacy Directive came out most people who thought about this wouldn't have predicted that companies would put up cookie banners?

csydas 4y ago

That's because the cookie dialogues as they are now were never part of the original GDPR and other privacy related bills/acts/whatever. GDPR requires that consent is as easy to withdraw as it is to give. [0] That companies have dragged their feet and gone kicking and screaming with cookie banners is irrelevant to the actual law; the EU needs to start cracking down more and more on this to show what it actually means, since it's quite clear that companies are not going to willingly comply with the data consent laws. So don't blame the politicians on this one, they never gave any requirement for such banners, and in fact specifically mentioned that it must be simple to revoke/deny consent. Companies that didn't want to comply with GDPR and other privacy laws decided to make it as painful as possible for you and I and blame it on the privacy rules. [0] - https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

janalsncm 4y ago

The alternative is unmitigated surveillance capitalism. Most people don’t want to be spied on.

the8472 4y ago

Things that are technically necessary to facilitate functions requested by the user like shopping carts or login tokens are exempt under clause 22 of the ePrivacy directive. Don't set any other cookies and you won't need to ask for consent. Politicians aren't forcing websites to set more than the strictly necessary cookies, which require consent. It's marketing/advertising that does.

ilyt 4y ago

Cookie law does need revision, but GDPR is much better written