Interesting. I like this. No need for a cookie banner.
The rule is that if you have a good reason for your cookies (i.e., basically one that isn't user-hostile), you have nothing to worry about and don't need a cookie banner.
It's only when you engage in user-hostile practices, such as tracking, that you need to ask for consent.
I'm being sightly snarky, but that's really the essence of it.
At this point I’ve even had clients ask for it, thinking it makes their site more professional and credible, since everyone else does it.
But beware the predatory lawyers who will come after you for ostensible violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code section 630, et seq. (“CIPA”).
One company I work with received multiple arbitration demands (claimed "privacy" damages in excess of $25000 each, helpfully offered to settle for $5000 each!). And this company didn't even set any cookies or run any 3P tracking on their site!
Their (famous-you-know-them, expensive, California-based) lawyers said "yes, we are seeing this more and more. We can fight and win for $200K, or you can pay the $50K of claims outstanding and add a banner to your site".
Their CEO chose the less-expensive option. :-/
They seek out customers of the company ("Are you now, or have you been, a customer of X? You may be the victim of Y/eligible for legal settlement Z/etc.") They may even identify the corporate targets, and recruit new customers for their purpose.
And the way to avoid the issue completely is to add a stupid, superfluous, cookie banner. (Which, in the height of absurdity, requires adding a cookie).
It was a painful and semi-expensive lesson for this small company. And their expensive/prominent lawyers say they are seeing the problem increasing. (I asked why they didn't take the time to warn their clients, but did not get a satisfactory answer).
So it's worth a thought and a note when the idea of not needing a cookie banner comes up.
> While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
There's nothing about a cookie banner in GDPR, it's just the most convenient (and, often, laziest) solution to the question of how to confidently say you've told users something.
Which is what the majority of sites want to do which is why there is a good reason for a cookie banner, by definition.
>No need for a cookie banner.
fragmede@samairmac:~$ ssh tildeverse.org
fragmede@tildeverse.org: Permission denied (publickey).Copy-paste or manually type the URL to get around that!
Edit: They seem to be redirecting with a 301 permanent HTTP response, which seems slightly obnoxious since your browser might cache it. I can't visit the site anymore from the browser I'm using here, so maybe try a different one or incognito mode.
Additionally, you're probably giving a shipping address and using a card number of some sort.
Its extremely difficult to shop anonymously online for physical goods.
Yeah, nerds. In the FAQ there is the question "What is SSH", and the answer is - "If you have to ask then it's not for you".
Edit: Seems the FAQ may have been updated or this simply wasn't part of the online version, https://imgur.com/a/igjGCFM here is a section of the FAQ sent to my email.
It's not clear that it applies to the web! But predatory lawyers will come after you for it, if you are big enough and don't have a cookie banner.
Depending on how they're using any personal data you provide, they likely wouldn't need consent: for instance, if they use the personal data you provide to ship you your order, they don't need to ask (you supplied your information for the express purpose of placing an order, after all). However, if they want to do more with that data, they'd need consent.