Note that cookies that are technically required to serve the site don't need a cookie banner. This is something many people get wrong. Other people shift to LocalStorage instead. But the actual legislation does not distinguish between cookies and local storage (and similar techniques).
Also, there must be a "reject all" button which should appear visually equivalent to the "accept all" button. Rejecting all has to be as easy as accepting all. Additional clicks are not legal.
It creates visibility where there was none.
That's illegal, then.
4 years on, and people still think GDPR is about cookies – and even responsible for the intrusive consent pop-ups!
It is a testament to the power of the adtech giants and all the other shitty shady businesses, how they managed to twist the narrative.
And that's on HN, a presumably tech savvy audience. What chance does the "normal" population stand?
2. It's not GDPR that made it worse but ad-tech and similar leeches who want to continue vacuuming up all available data without reprecussions
They chose to put up cookie banners as a way of making to seem like the people making the laws told them to do it.
> 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them
This is silly. The rule is that people are allowed to opt 𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ in to tracking. Just because some companies use cookies for this doesn't mean that cookies are banned.
If you are using cookies to store your website's settings then that is perfectly fine.
Sorry to correct you, but the rule is that people are allowed to opt-in to tracking. This fundamental misunderstanding is kinda the problem...
And even after opting in, you are allowed to opt out.
The problem is that people think the cookies are the problem, when in fact it's not the cookies but the tracking.
The GDPR is about data processing consent as a whole, regardless of how the data was collected. It includes data that you can’t withhold such as your IP address, browser fingerprint, etc.
They need explicit permission to track you. The browser doing absolutely nothing is what most people want.
The website can set whatever cookies it wants for the activity of the website itself.
Fake cookie banners are illegal under the GDPR. Seriously, in what other aspects of life do people respond to terrible enforcement by saying the law is the problem? (Of course there exists a bunch of stupid laws that are also terribly enforced, but here the objective of the GDPR is not stupid – it's merely a matter of terrible enforcement)
> Cost money to company (so cost to customers)
Most regulation comes with a cost. The fact that this does, too, is kinda meaningless on its own. Food safety regulation comes at a cost – that, in itself, is not an argument against such regulation.
> A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.
Are you seriously arguing that legislation to enforce such privacy standardization would be easier to enforce than the current GDPR? By all means, what you're proposing sounds great – better than the GDPR even – but massively harder to do.
Every other case where the law is widely broken and selectively enforced? From low-level traffic offenses to drug legalization.
No, all websites that have cookie banners do so because they were already ruining the web, the only thing you can blame GDPR for in that regard is visualizing it.
You can't necessarily raise prices just because your costs go up.
I agree they should have thought better of that cookie law, which is a different one. But GDPR really was and is on point.
They're not obnoxious because GDPR made them that way, they're obnoxious because companies who think they have a right to unfettered and undisclosed abuse of people's data (because that's what they were used to) are trying to pretend that the law is the problem and not their malfeasance.
A fully compliant GDPR banner has two buttons, of equal prominence: reject all, and accept all. That's it. Any obnoxiousness is on thy implementor, and it's likely illegal.
Another fully compliant solution is to only collect the data you actual need and then you don't even need a banner at all.