> And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes.
I don't understand this line of thinking. You are declining the cookies, so obviously you prefer not to be tracked. And it's obvious that it's not the EU who made the varying, annoying, and often purposely misleading dialog boxes to decline the cookies, but the companies who want to force their tracking on you. Without the EU law, they would just do it without asking for permission. So why blame the EU?
Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be?
Would some design guidelines be helpful? Maybe but it's still fundamentally flawed and I doubt it'd be enforced.
As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse).
I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest.
I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost.
I get the impression people want this to be a good idea, because it sounds like one, instead of considering whether it is.
Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
> Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be?
"Of course burglars choosing less protected houses is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the makers of security systems be responsible? Who else would be?"
I still don't get it. Without the EU laws, it wouldn't be magically easier to block tracking cookies, they wouldn't offer a choice at all? What are you arguing for?
> As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse).
> I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest.
The cookies for functionality/session are not affected by the cookie popup.
> I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost.
I use an adblocker and still decline on the cookie popups. I assume you are doing, too, otherwise you wouldn't complain about popups you don't see?
> Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
Me able to decline them is real-world utility. If a majority or at least significant portion of users is successfully tricked into accepting the cookies, then that calls for a refinement of the law along with better enforcement, not for retraction of the law. "Let them have it", what a bleak, defeatist thing to suggest.
You are blaming the makers of the law for what is very obviously the fault of the perpetrators, who are trying to get around the law in profoundly shady and just downright shitty ways.
I am glad the EU law exists, without it there wouldn't even be the option.
Client side blocking (by that I mean removing them after the tab/page close)? First for third party cookies, then for all of them, and add a "button" next to the url bar, to enable cookies for that specific site (to allow logins).
This breaks multiple desirable uses of cookies, unless they're explicitly allowed on a per-site basis. It doesn't help if a site uses cookies for both desirable and undesirable purposes. If this solution became ubiquitous, I'd predict websites would start showing popup banners nagging you to click the "enable cookies" button from next to the URL bar. Finally, even if this did work to stop websites from tracking users via cookies, the data harvesters would simply keep using non-cookie tracking methods like browser fingerprinting.
In contrast, the GDPR does not place requirements for cookies if they're not used for storing or processing personal data (the ePrivacy directive which I'm less familiar with might require a notification about them). It does not even require a popup or user's confirmation if personal data is processed on a legal basis other than consent (though these uses may need to be listed in some kind of available privacy policy document). Finally, as GDPR is mostly technology agnostic, its requirements remain the same regardless of whether the data collection is done using cookies or any other means.
I don't understand this line of thinking. You are declining the cookies, so obviously you prefer not to be tracked. And it's obvious that it's not the EU who made the varying, annoying, and often purposely misleading dialog boxes to decline the cookies, but the companies who want to force their tracking on you. Without the EU law, they would just do it without asking for permission. So why blame the EU?