6 ms·

If the EU is unable to separate itself from pages of analytics and tracking cookies and fifteen third party providers (YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and s

by shagie 12d ago

If the EU is unable to separate itself from pages of analytics and tracking cookies and fifteen third party providers (YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and so on), then "most of the other ones you see" are likewise compelled to have the cookie banner. Alternatively, if you need a cookie banner for every bit of analytics... Name: cck3 Service: Cookie consent kit Purpose: Stores your preferences for 3rd-party cookies (so you won't be asked again) Cookie type and duration: First-party session cookie deleted after you quit your browser Yep, your cookie consent cookie is browser session and every page that has a cookie consent banner that sets a cookie so that you won't see it is required to have a cookie consent banner to inform you that you have a cookie tracking your cookie consent.

globular-toast 12d ago
Look, governments are big, really big. The department responsible for the website has absolutely nothing to do with the cookie banner law. My website doesn't have a banner because I don't track you. That's how easy it is to not have a cookie banner.
- shagie 12d ago
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng is the link for the GPDR. There's a cookie banner there describing how their analytics cookies will track you for 13 months, 6 months, and 365 days... along with that they may display content from "external providers, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter".
  - collingreen 12d ago
    Is this supposed to refute the comment you are replying to saying they don't track, or is it something else I don't understand? Is it just like a dunk on an eu site that tracks you? If it's "even this eu site chooses to track you, therefore it's unreasonable for anyone to not track you" that's a weird point to make in reply to a comment explicitly showing a counter example.
    - shagie 11d ago
      A site that serves static content, with no logging in or advertising on it that uses its data internally without attaching any identity to it still needs to have a cookie banner. It demonstrates to the rest of the world how to be compliant with the cookie consent. If there was a less intrusive way to do it, the EU sites aren't demonstrating how to do it that way but instead have chosen to use a cookie banner that shows up every browser session. Secondly, the law is written so that any cookie requires that banner. Store a language selection in a cookie (clientlanguage - Cookie holding the user’s language selection - First-party persistent cookie, 30 days) and you need that banner. The cookie notice isn't the "fault" of the site that you're visiting. Minimal client side data storing in cookies that isn't tracking a user's identity requires the banner. The GDPR's cookie consent was written far too broadly to the extent that any use of cookies - even if they don't track an identity - requires a cookie consent banner. The result of the ubiquitous cookie banner is that every site has it and people ignore it. This sort of alert fatigue makes it so that when there's a site that is following the law and is giving excessive tracking cookies that people don't see it as any worse than a site that is persisting if you prefer dark mode across browser sessions. Furthermore, since it is so common, people become blind to it. Often people will install extensions to dismiss the banner so that companies that sites that aren't presenting the banner for the tracking data appear exactly the same. As the law is written, sites that scrupulously following the GDPR are providing coverage for those that are not while simultaneously annoying people with a banner that everyone clicks some form of "accept" (be it all or essential only) training people to blindly click "accept" banners that pop up whenever they see them and contributing to the spread of malware.
      - globular-toast 11d ago
        > The GDPR's cookie consent was written far too broadly to the extent that any use of cookies - even if they don't track an identity - requires a cookie consent banner. That is not true. Cookies that are essential to providing the service the user expects to not require a cookie banner. People just add them because they either can't be bothered to read the rules or because they are doing tracking and things the user does not want. A cookie banner always means the site is trying to get your clearance to do something you probably don't want.

by shagie 12d ago

globular-toast 12d ago

Look, governments are big, really big. The department responsible for the website has absolutely nothing to do with the cookie banner law. My website doesn't have a banner because I don't track you. That's how easy it is to not have a cookie banner.

shagie 12d ago
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng is the link for the GPDR. There's a cookie banner there describing how their analytics cookies will track you for 13 months, 6 months, and 365 days... along with that they may display content from "external providers, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter".
- collingreen 12d ago
  Is this supposed to refute the comment you are replying to saying they don't track, or is it something else I don't understand? Is it just like a dunk on an eu site that tracks you? If it's "even this eu site chooses to track you, therefore it's unreasonable for anyone to not track you" that's a weird point to make in reply to a comment explicitly showing a counter example.
  - shagie 11d ago
    A site that serves static content, with no logging in or advertising on it that uses its data internally without attaching any identity to it still needs to have a cookie banner. It demonstrates to the rest of the world how to be compliant with the cookie consent. If there was a less intrusive way to do it, the EU sites aren't demonstrating how to do it that way but instead have chosen to use a cookie banner that shows up every browser session. Secondly, the law is written so that any cookie requires that banner. Store a language selection in a cookie (clientlanguage - Cookie holding the user’s language selection - First-party persistent cookie, 30 days) and you need that banner. The cookie notice isn't the "fault" of the site that you're visiting. Minimal client side data storing in cookies that isn't tracking a user's identity requires the banner. The GDPR's cookie consent was written far too broadly to the extent that any use of cookies - even if they don't track an identity - requires a cookie consent banner. The result of the ubiquitous cookie banner is that every site has it and people ignore it. This sort of alert fatigue makes it so that when there's a site that is following the law and is giving excessive tracking cookies that people don't see it as any worse than a site that is persisting if you prefer dark mode across browser sessions. Furthermore, since it is so common, people become blind to it. Often people will install extensions to dismiss the banner so that companies that sites that aren't presenting the banner for the tracking data appear exactly the same. As the law is written, sites that scrupulously following the GDPR are providing coverage for those that are not while simultaneously annoying people with a banner that everyone clicks some form of "accept" (be it all or essential only) training people to blindly click "accept" banners that pop up whenever they see them and contributing to the spread of malware.
    - globular-toast 11d ago
      > The GDPR's cookie consent was written far too broadly to the extent that any use of cookies - even if they don't track an identity - requires a cookie consent banner. That is not true. Cookies that are essential to providing the service the user expects to not require a cookie banner. People just add them because they either can't be bothered to read the rules or because they are doing tracking and things the user does not want. A cookie banner always means the site is trying to get your clearance to do something you probably don't want.