Or you can read what Github has to say about this: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
That website basically has an infinite budget and doesn't have to make a single cent. It is also for the group that should have the best understanding of the law. Yet they still give you the cookie popup.
why do you think a banner should not be in this case ? devs are lazy they aren't going to recreate all the service inhouse from scratch. I don't think the dev team has infinite budget either.
- it offers an explanations that cookies are used, and offers a link to read why
- it offers a way to opt out that is as easy as the way to opt-in
- it doesn't prevent the site from functioning
However, I agree that they shouldn't require non-essential cookies to begin with.
It's from a 2002 ePrivacy Directive, which is still in force, but on its way out and therefore less heavily enforced. ePrivacy Regulation is supposed to eventually deprecate it. The initial idea was for both GDPR and ePR to be enforced from the same date, but that obviously hasn't happened.
Yeah it does[0], and no it didn't get updated. ePrivacy Regulation which was supposed to make it deprecated was never voted on.
[0] "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections. The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose."
Not the ones that the industry has barfed up, and I specifically chose this wording
ePrivacy: "their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information"
GDPR (among other things): "the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language... It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent."
Nothing in any law requires the "accept by default, go through hundreds of checkboxes to opt-out". If anything, those are actually illegal.
This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more.
If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.
European here. I squarely blame the business, and often turn back when hit by a particularly obnoxious banner.
> This is how Brexit happened, remain tried to explain this stuff over and over again and no one wants to hear it. They want the cookie banners gone, or the bendy banana rules gone. The EU makes itself an easy target everytime they add more.
Nah, that's stupid. The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor. It just says that if you want to sell bananas labelled as "class A" they can't be bent into a pretzel. Because go figure, when a restaurant buys what is advertised as high quality produce, they don't want to get a shipment full of ugly stuff that doesn't look good on the plate.
But you absolutely can sell weird, ugly but still edible bananas. They just have to be described properly.
That's again, what the article is speaking about here.
> If nothing else was learned from Brexit that should have been the thing. There actually isn't a point where you can spend enough money to convince people of this stuff when they don't want to hear it.
Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it.
You're in the minority. Most people will not think every business is responsible for that, they'll assume they're being forced into it.
> The bendy banana thing isn't a law, it's a class descriptor.
Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true.
> Haven't changed my mind in the slightest on that. Brexit was a stupid idea and as far as I can see, the UK failed to profit from it.
Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point.
They've gotten far less annoying as of late, in good part because the EU made it clear annoying the user into acceptance isn't going to fly.
But early on, when websites had the great idea to make me opt out of 78 "partners" one by one, my annoyance was not at the EU, but at the website forcing me to click 78 checkboxes, and a reaction of "WTF? Why are 78 companies being informed I'm reading an article?"
> Missing the point. Even with millions of pounds you can't convince a majority of people that is true.
Did you know the US also has equivalent banana regulations?
> Continue to miss the point here. It doesn't have to be a good idea, years of meddling made it so people were willing to vote for a bad idea. That's my point.
Yeah, to their detriment to the point that it killed pretty much every other eurosceptic movement, and apparently they're not that happy with Brexit anymore themselves either.
A bit chicken and the egg, this. Persistent and well funded influence campaigns are precisely how people came to hold the views you describe. I personally wouldn't treat "leave" logic as some kind of particularly organic position. Rather its success demonstrates how one form of persuasion was more effective than another.
This is true. I'm not sure anyone has demonstrated it working the other way though so it seems to be infinitely more effective.
It's happening again now with EVs. "The EU is forcing you to swap your car for an expensive EV with their Euro6 rules." There doesn't seem to be any come back to it at all.
You're very much speaking from inside a bubble here. The only people I ever hear blame the EU for this, are on HN.