A bad bandaid is still a bad thing, regardless of what it is covering up. Cookies are table stakes on the internet. This is the wrong solution to a completely different problem.
Any other cookies are not "table stakes".
Random example from more than a decade ago: I worked at an online retailer, and we did a nice redesign of our cart page. Looked great, much more readable, but we started losing sales. Did people hate the redesign? It was certainly easier to use and navigate.
Our marketing guy looked at our analytics and saw that there was a massive drop in checkouts from users whose displays were set to 1024x768. He changed his resolution and, sure enough, the 'Checkout' button was something like four pixels below the bottom of the screen, if you were using Internet Explorer or Chrome and you had your browser maximized.
I get that analytics can seem creepy and gross, and stuff like that is 'none of [retailers'] business' to a lot of people, but without those analytics we would have had no idea why we lost those sales, and would have had to simply revert the redesign with no real opportunity to change it.
I'd expect a bit more from smart people who see very well into what kind of society we are going full speed, with no way out once in (if you don't consider going back to caves as a good option, I don't).
Its very fabric of whole society our kids will live in we are talking about here, nothing less. Is pretty clear what directions the biggest corporations are taking, hey are not even trying to hide what's in plain sight. If we common folks don't at least attempt to stop it or steer it in other direction I am worried nobody else ever will.
I'd have sympathy for these people if they weren't also primarily responsible for the many darkpatterns, traps, and user-hostile aspects of modern interactivity.
That's not really my problem as a (viciously tracked) user. Now, is it?
Everyone thinks that but in practice most folks don't have a clue what they're looking at and just use the numbers as a crutch for whatever opinion they already had.
Of course, this problem isn't just a web analytics one.
Yes, but the cost of doing that through GA is that a single US megacorp outside EU jurisdiction can reconstruct most users entire browsing history for whatever US intelligence wants to do with it.
And at small small cost of privacy violations and spying on users.
If you want analytics, just get consent for be tracked.
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN...
But because one really big early intenet player disrespected it [2] it became mostly useless.
> What is P3P?
> The Platform for Privacy Preferences Project (P3P) enables Websites to express their privacy practices in a standard format that can be retrieved automatically and interpreted easily by user agents. P3P user agents will allow users to be informed of site practices (in both machine- and human-readable formats) and to automate decision-making based on these practices when appropriate. Thus users need not read the privacy policies at every site they visit.
> Why is P3P useful?
> P3P uses machine readable descriptions to describe the collection and use of data. Sites implementing such policies make their practises explicit and thus open them to public scrutiny. Browsers can help the user to understand those privacy practises with smart interfaces. Most importantly, Browsers can this way develop a predictable behavior when blocking content like cookies thus giving a real incentive to eCommerce sites to behave in a privacy friendly way. This avoids the current scattering of cookie-blocking behaviors based on individual heuristics imagined by the implementer of the blocking tool which will make the creation of stateful services on the web a pain because the state-retrievel will be unpredictable.
[2] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/151657?hl=en
> P3P and Google's cookies
> In some situations, the cookies we use to secure and authenticate your Google Account and store your preferences may be served from a different domain than the website you're visiting. This may happen, for example, if you visit websites with Google +1 buttons.
> Some browsers require third party cookies to use the P3P protocol to state their privacy practices. However, the P3P protocol was not designed with situations like these in mind. As a result, we've inserted a link into our cookies that directs users to a page where they can learn more about the privacy practices associated with these cookies.
Requiring the opt-in to happen on the side creates an avenue to critique and dispute whether the website does the thing they say they do.
Hint: buy the cheapest crappiest laptop you can find. Test your site on it.
You are clearly confusing the issue here.
No one cares for your smartass solution for the problem - it's obvious enough once you are aware of the problem itself. The issue is tracking the problem in the first place.
Hints like "oh you should have just been totally aware of it in the first place" are plain naive.
I'll believe that when they don't have a huge banner that's covering a fourth of the page.
> The commonly seen method of using a checkbox and a simple information note such as “remember me (uses cookies)” next to the submit form would be an appropriate means of gaining consent therefore negating the need to apply an exemption in this case.
If it is 'table stakes', like "remember me" checkbox, you don't need a separate cookie banner
https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... via https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/32152/gdpr-cookie-fo...