EDIT: I didn’t realize the anger this would bring out of people. It was supposed to be a funny meme based on recent real-life situations I’ve encountered, not an attack on the EU.

I appreciate the effort of the EU cookie laws. The practice of them just doesn’t live up to the theory of the law. Shady companies are always going to find a way to be shady.

    • Sysosmaster
      link
      fedilink
      152 years ago

      even worse offenders are the ones with tick boxes for “Legitimate Interest”, since legitimate interest is another grounds for processing (just ads freely given consent is one), the fact you got a “tick” box for it makes it NOT legitimate interest within the confines of the GDPR.

      it also doesn’t matter what technology you use whether its cookies / urls / images / local storage / spy satellites. its solely about how you use the data…

    • IIRC the EU also ruled that burying the rejection options under additional links counts as a violation. Hence why Google now has a Reject button next to the accept button. Most sites still do that.

          • 👁️👄👁️
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Yeah this is very common, I don’t know why other people on here are gaslighting like it doesn’t happen. It’s this way for major sites like YouTube/Twitter/Twitch/etc too. Hell even embedding a YouTube video on a site is violating GDPR. It’s a good idea, but needs a version 2.0 patch to fix some exploits.

      • Carighan Maconar
        link
        fedilink
        182 years ago

        Because they rest safe in the knowledge that you rarely if ever get taken to court for it. There are millions of web pages, it needs people to take action to do something about it, and just clicking “Yes all of them” to access the content you were just trying to get to is a far better solution in most situations than hiring a lawyer and investing a few years of legal proceedings, nevermind the money.

    • @ecamitor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      They found a way around: accept all cookies or pay 2€/months. And it was decied legal by GDPR authorities

    • @Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      But what are they going to do about it?

      “Here’s a fine, if you don’t pay it your site can no longer operate in the EU”

      “… ok”

  • @Scoopta@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    1132 years ago

    I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock…and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn’t even be a thing

    • @Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      312 years ago

      Sites that block adblock - I have network based filtering I’m not going to take the time to specifically figure out what ad providers you’re using (which is probably that same as everyone else) just to unblock your shitty site.

      • @Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        102 years ago

        There’s lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They’ll be like “wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing.” Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection

    • Ignotum
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      I don’t use adblock, and yet i keep getting “disable adblock to view this” messages, fuck this shit

    • @ozymandias117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 years ago

      The fun part is that websites that do this are illegal in the EU

      They need to start flexing that 4% revenue / year fines

  • @nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    Nearly all of these are illegal, but sadly there is little enforcement when it comes to this. (Tracking must be opt-in, not opt-out. Ignoring a banner must be interpreted as declining. Opting out must be a simple option, not navigating a complex and misleading menus. The users choice applies to any form of tracking, not just cookies…)

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    272 years ago

    I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC

  • @DeriHunter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    182 years ago

    Serious question: I know that there are tracking cookies and the user should be able to decline those,but most sites have an auth cookie that stores you’re credentials. The devs can store it in a different place like local storage but thats really unsecured.what can the devs do in this situation when the user decline all cookies?

    • Kevin Noodle
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      Usually the prompts are specifically for tracking cookies, not essential ones for login. Alternatives without cookies:

      • URL sessions
      • Tokens
      • OAuth/OIDC third party
      • Local/Session Storage (ditto - mind the risks)
    • @GuroGuru@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      312 years ago

      The EU is not stupid. They categorized cookies into the necessary ones for site-usage and those that aren’t. So developers just categorize their session cookie (rightfully) as necessary and that’s it.

    • What the dev can do if user decline processing of personal data is not store such personal data in cookies or anywhere.

      Or even better, do not track the user so the consent would only be needed in for example registration form.

    • @nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      The GDPR is not “cookie law”, it only prohibits tracking users in a way not essential to the operation of the site using locally stored identifiers (cookies, local storage, indexed DB…)

      Storing a cookie to track login sessions, or color scheme preference does not require asking the user or allowing them to decline.

    1. This was not about cookies, but processing of personal data and new definitions of such data. Cookies was just an example.
    2. By those laws, forcing user to consent with denying access to the service is declared illegal.
  • @RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -92 years ago

    Road to hell, good intentions and all that. Government fundamentally misunderstanding the role of cookies and the fact that browsers can handle user privacy with trivial effort by default rather than having every single website annoy the fuck out of you with a million goddamn notifications before actually showing you what you want to see.

    • @kornel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The annoying popups are an act of malicious compliance from data harvesting companies. The tracking industry wants people to associate the right to privacy with stupid annoyance, so that people will stop demanding privacy.

      The legislation does not say anything about cookies. It’s about rights and responsibilities in data collection (no matter how it’s done technically). The “consent” part of it exists as a compromise, because there has been heavy lobbying against the legislation.

      This is not a technical problem — we’ve had many technologies for it, and the industry has sabotaged all of them. There was the P3P spec in 2002! It has been implemented in IE that had 90%+ market share back then. And Google has been actively exploiting a loophole in IE’s implementation to bypass it and have unlimited tracking. Google has paid fines for actively subverting Safari’s early anti-tracking measures. Then browsers tried DNT spec as the simplest possible opt-out, and even that has been totally rejected by the data harvesting industry. There are easy technical solutions, but there are also literally trillions of dollars at stake, and ad companies will viciously sabotage all of it.

      • It’s becoming a lot easier to use the internet a lot less. It’s been turned into such a user-hostile space so domineered by corporations and fascists that most of the internet doesn’t really hold much of an appeal anymore, at least for me.

        If the internet died tomorrow and didn’t come back, I’d be annoyed about not being able to use it to order food, manage my bank account, or watch shows/movies, but the world would likely be an overall better place once logistics re-adapted to not having it.

        The internet was cool for the first 10-15 years, but it’s been a rapidly worsening cesspit for a long time. Nothing the internet can offer us is worth also tolerating it as a tool for inescapable government and corporate surveillance, and as the most effective imagineable breeding ground for fascism and disinformation.

        The internet makes our lives worse in so many more ways than it imporves them, and people are too fucking addicted to it to give a shit.