I am not necessarily commenting on the philosophy behind the banner, but I now have a much fuller understanding of how disruptive they are.
I am not necessarily commenting on the philosophy behind the banner, but I now have a much fuller understanding of how disruptive they are.
The law demands them to ask for informed consent only if they want to collect more than that technically necessary data. If that consent isn't given voluntarily it isn't consent. If the choise is "Yes" and a puzzle-maze of a thousand flavors of "No" it isn't informed consent. If the cookies exist before asking they haven't been consentual, etc.
If websites cared about users they just honored the Do Not Track setting
I’m told my data is protected in the EU, but of I don’t click Approve on the cookie banner, the newspaper tells me “You must either subscribe to our newsletter or approve cookies”, and the receipe website adds “We fund our cranky website full of undesired videos and where we hide our ingredient list under a “See more…” to get beyond the 3-ingredient limit, with ads, so you must allow cookies.”
If the EU could make itself useful, that would be now.
That's also allowed in the EU, it's actually illegal in Sweden for temperatures inside to be under 18C for long periods.
Not anymore. I mean, you can pay for them now, but you don't get them by default.
> You must either subscribe to our newsletter or approve cookies
That's not legal... or at least some versions it are not. You can report them or try contacting https://noyb.eu/ in case they're interested. But now you know how you actually pay for that website.
> If the EU could make itself useful, that would be now.
They literally created laws which make this behaviour illegal. (Again, some versions anyway) Now it's up to enforcement, but that's country-local not something EU as an organisation can do.