1. Businesses trying to violate your privacy. 2. A government trying to protect you from said businesses.
Either of these entities could avoid the cookie warning, but there are very different reasons why they do not.
not ah yes, let's go back to having no regulation of corps tracking people.
People would be quite enthusiastic to more regulation which required no cookie banners where users had, eg., expressed a preference for no tracking at the browser level. And likewise, to require the provision of such "no-tracking signals".
I suspect something like this is on the horizon, and in part, something google was trying to head-off with its 3rd party cookies stuff.
"more, better!"
this is so true and kind of hilarious to see Americans not understand this. When a regulation happens and it's day to day effects are not working out great. The answer will always be to regulate more, add more rules and restrict things more.
The EU is inclined not to create regulations at first. They prefer to hold meetings, seminars and inform companies of their effects to encourage them to self regulate. If after years this does not help they will either:
A) create subsidies to help companies implement changes. but only if they have shown they are will to interact with the EU governing bodies.
or
B) Add rules and regulations to force companies to act a certain way.
The beautiful disconnect pointed out in the article where Apple thinks the meetings are negotiation and EU is basically showing that their smiles and friendly words are just formalities and change is happening no matter what Apple thinks or not.
I think there are very, very few people who are earnestly proud of the work the EU did with this regulation every time they waste finite brain cycles on yet another cookie banner. I don't really know why Europeans use this as an example of their system of governance working as hoped.
The anticipated effect of requiring consent is that by forcing companies to shine a flashlight on their own bad behavior, they will instead choose to correct their behavior. That didn't end up happening in practice.
That said, I just looked at it, and this is my idea of a well-made popup: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
[0] But for the Betteridge law of headlines and Gell-Mann amnesia
Which, technically, it isn't.
> Which, technically, it isn't.
That's still a dark pattern, because by definition, dark patterns aren't illegal - just barely legal, and detrimental to the consumer.
While still protecting the “business freedom” of the said business.
They could have forbidden cookies and tracking altogether, but they are too probusiness for that.
This is false. The GDPR does not mandate privacy - the GDPR mandates the protection of certain kinds of personal data, much of which (e.g. IP addresses) has legitimate reasons for being collected (e.g. abuse protection). Claiming that every business that shows a cookie warning is trying to violate your privacy is not only objectively false, but extremely intellectually dishonest - although that's about par for the course for GDPR enthusiast zealots.
I do not care why cookie banners are there. All I know is that they weren't there N years ago and now they are, and they are annoying.
Is there some background reading on this? I would like to use Cloudflare as one of my DNS providers but this issue has always bothered me.