What I would like to see browsers do is grow a feature that tells web servers what uses of my data I consider acceptable, so that I don't have to waste my time every time I visit nearly every site on the entire damn Internet.
But we've been there before - P3P, Do-Not-Track, and now Global Privacy Control. Until regulators force web sites to obey signals from browsers, we're going to be stuck with these bloody popups.
Opt-out means the website loads, creates all the cookies it wants unless you find some hidden option to disable cookies.
Opt-in means the website loads, it does not create cookies, but because the website wants to create cookies it will show a popup asking permission (opt-in), because it is illegal otherwise. The website does not have to create cookies. The creators of the website could simply choose that cookies are not necessary and in that case they are not required to show any consent request. The EU cookie opt-in legislation works as intended.
We are stuck in this adversarial environment unfortunately.
The people that should be mocked are the EU bureaucrats that thought this was a good idea and the people that defend it.
It's a idiotic legislation that does NOTHING to protect your data. It's feel-good nonsense that EU can occasionally use as a club to extort business corporations that they want something from.
The only thing that it accomplished is to create a false sense of security in the public.
These companies are not trustworthy and neither is the EU government.
The correct solution to this problem is at the browser level and at the human level. Don't disclose information to the internet you don't want to show up on the internet.
Absolute nonsense. Tracking has to be disclosed, and is only permitted after obtaining informed consent from users. Without the law I'd have no idea what thousands of companies are doing with my data, without my consent.
This means that before getting your consent, each website has to show you the text. And they cannot get your consent from a setting that does not correspond to them, specifically.
So if you tell your browser: « I accept that website track me on what I do on them, but do not allow marketing related stuff », website are not allowed to recognise that level of consent, skip the banner and act accordingly.
Any website showing a cookie banner already prioritizes their ad revenue over your convenience of not seeing a banner. So why would they implement any extra work to spare you that banner, if you're one of those customers that won't drive ad revenue?
So, please read those pages - on every website - then systematically click on "Reject all". That's what the law asks you to do, and it is indeed absolutely nuts.
Websites only have to ask consent to track you if they track you in the first place. Sucks to suck.
A decently-designed website would just tell you it's about to set a cookie with a “more info” link. If you choose to go ahead, that's informed specific consent.
Besides, under the GDPR companies can collect and store personal data without needing consent if it's for one of the listed permitted purposes. They only need consent at all if they have no good reason to collect the data — consent is really supposed to be the excuse of last resort.
cookies are local storage. cookie prompts are you telling the server how you'd like it to instruct your client to behave. it's so weirdly roundabout: if EU wanted this regulated why didn't they just tell browser vendors that they need to implement cookie control as a 1st-party feature?