this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

67987 readers
3504 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Do Not Track" is a legally binding order, German Court tells LinkedIn::Landgericht Berlin gibt Klage des vzbv gegen die LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company weitgehend statt

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

GDPR was designed around the "Do not Track" browser flag, so that websites can get a semblance of consent using those annoying cookie prompts, with dark patterns like hiding the "Decline All cookies" inside the second page of the prompt, or using very small fonts and gray colors + very confusing language. and they have carried on with complete impunity for 5 years now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Luckily in Germany the law states that at least the "Decline all cookies" button has to be in the same place as the "Accept all cookies" one. So at least the local sites are kind of easy to navigate.

Only problem at the moment are "Accept all cookies or buy a subscription" banners. But as far as I know the courts are inclined to side with the customers on this one as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, most companies still don’t abide by it tho. There’s lots of sites where you can accept all cookies or you have to jump through a few hoops to decline the non essential ones.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Am I supposed to trust the company to correctly define 'essential?' Seems easy to weasel around and makes me nervous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's almost certainly going to be litigated at some point, so a court is going to define "essential"... eventually.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Totally. If we’re going make real change with this we need hard enforcement that says “you must provide a default setting that can be set per browser” or something that avoids the entire need for sifting through their cookie menu to find out I left one turned on. But this is peak example of ineffective laws to govern the internet made by people who don’t have any experience in computer science. I’m sure we will continue to see “do not track is just a suggestion” messages continuously. Or the requirement for each individual website to specify what type of tracking in absurd detail.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, I hope this goes to higher courts and cascades down to be an alternative to the stupid cookie banners.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, what exactly are "essential cookies"? Why does the website get to decide if they are essential?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, some websites do need certain cookies to function correctly. As a random example, if a user goes to their bank's website, they're more than likely not going to know what to enable/disable cookie wise so that the website is still functional for logging into their account. So I can understand lumping those actual essential cookies into one category in those instances. However, I agree that it's almost certainly being abused.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Probably worth noting: Only things like non essential third party cookies need consent. Essential cookies for things like the users active session that are not shared don't need a cookie banner.

Source: gdpr.eu/cookies

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah. And sites are still more than happy to show those in the popup, just to muddy the waters and make it more complicated than it needs to be. Same with "legitimate interests".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And sites are still more than happy to show those in the popup, just to muddy the waters and make it more complicated than it needs to be.

As far as I see it, displaying information regarding strictly necessary cookies that do not require consent is good practice.

The website linked above states that "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."

I think the complicated part is mostly the deliberately bad UI that is often used for cookie banners. They purposefully use a bad layout and color scheme in an attempt to push the user to just click "Accept all". As far as I understand if a websites only had strictly necessary cookies then I think they wouldn't even need a cookie popup in the first place though and could simply list this information on a separate "Privacy Policy" page or such.