European Union set to revise cookie law, admits cookie banners are annoying::undefined

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    10 months ago

    A major political entity admitting mistake and correcting based on feedback. How refreshing.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The actual EU documents say the complete opposite. They say that the cookie law is going nowhere, this new thing is a framework for easier compliance with the existing law for big business.

    From the letter issued by the EU Supervisory Authority to the Commission about this :

    While voluntary commitments [of companies to adhere to the GDPR] may be a useful tool, the pledging principles should by no means be used to circumvent legal obligations. In addition, undertaking voluntary commitments does not equate or guarantee compliance with the applicable data protection and privacy framework.

  • ViscloReader@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I trust they’ll do a good job focusing on privacy rather than outright going back to “no banner, cookies for everyone!”

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    The banners should stay. If a site doesn’t use cookies, you don’t get a banner. The sites choose for themselves if they want to use cookies and put up an obnoxious banner, or not use cookies.

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Install privacy badge, turn on “automatically send do not track” and those things all just melt away when you go to a new site as it processes almost all sites automatically.

    • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      The “do not track” is really just you asking them politely not to track you, they are not obligated to stop tracking…more often than not, it is completely ignored and they track you anyway.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        California’s regulations have teeth but there are some exclusions and exemptions, I guess like most laws it’ll only be followed if suing and getting damages is easy and results made public.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yup, that’s where it’s the most valuable to not have to drag fingers around and whatnot, easier if you needed to deal with popup on PC with mouse and keyboard and whatnot.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    There are no cookie banners, at least not nessesary ones. There is just a consent requirement for processing personal data.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Um, what? Almost every consent banner I’ve seen has specifically asked about cookies, and usually nothing else.

      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is a misconception many sites fall into. They really do not have to ask for just cookies, it’s like there were asking to use CSS or JavaScript :).