Why wouldn't we? Those are the effect of web people not understanding the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is written by a more international alliance, they would still misunderstand it.
Another example: in the hey-day of the Web, a German court ruled that you cannot escape liability for slanderous statements on another web site you linked to, just by writing a disclaimer notice on your web site.
Because in that case the author had clearly endorsed it in many, many words, and the disclaimer was obviously not meant seriously.
From then on you could find the "the court has ruled that I'm responsible for linked content, unless I'm adding this disclaimer" notices everywhere. Including other courts' web pages.
Although the ruling was exactly opposite. People just copied and pasted this magic formula that would keep them out of trouble.
Or see the recent Instagram hoax, where you had to post some boilerplate text, in order to keep the rights to your content. Well-known celebrities fell for it.
People are stupid, they go with the flow, and they will get legal stuff wrong.
How is it not the law people not understanding the web?
How would you obtain consent from the user to store cookies without a pop-up or an even more disruptive method?
They clearly do and got input from technical people.
> “This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.”
Because the web people got that. The web is still polluted with cookie consent popups on 99 % of most used websites because 99 % of most used websites use 3rd party cookies.
If the law people understood the web they would not create regulations that forces every user in the continent to click a pop-up on every site they visit.
No.
I do not need to be served personalised ad cookies in order for the site to provide their service to me.
ditto with analytics.
ditto with social sharing.
ditto with anything else that stores inessential information.
> 99 % of most used websites use 3rd party cookies
You're referring to "3rd party cookies" but it applies to ALL cookies that are not essential so I will answer with respect to all cookies...
Essentially, that's the company's problem. If they want to continue using cookies to store information(regardless if 1st or 3rd party) to do something that is not needed for me to use their service, then they have to inform the user and obtain consent.
If they find the cookies(& popups) result in less users using their service, they should change their behaviour or you know - actually check if they need these active all the time for everyone.
Please read the Description section of this primer before continuing to engage. It is very accessible.
Using cookies (and pop-ups) does not result in less users using the service, at least not in a scale that outweighs the advantage of using cookies. The result is obvious: If you pass a law that requires websites to ask for consent to use their site, those websites will implement a method for collecting that consent.
If the law people had understood the web and actually wanted to protect user privacy, they would've outlawed those unwanted cookies. And not passed a ridiculous law for collecting consent that applies to almost every popular website in existence.
You ask me to read the regulation in detail as if I lack some insight in that (I don't). But the details of the regulation is irrelevant. The relevant understanding here is that websites will not turn of tracking unless it brings a substantial downside. It's crucial to the businesses behind those websites to be able to analyze traffic and usage with external tools.
Great username for you, too.
Because the only reason you're seeing them is that this is solved at the wrong level. The laws should have targetted browsers and adtech companies, not webmasters.