←back to thread

Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 1 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
diggan ◴[14 Nov 24 22:43 UTC] No.42141994[source]▶
Correct URL: https://legiscope.com/blog/hidden-productivity-drain-cookie-...

> This situation calls for an urgent revision of the ePrivacy Directive

Shame companies cannot live without tracking cookies, and shame that the blame somehow end up on the regulation, rather than the companies who are the ones who introduce this cookie banner and "massive productivity loss".

You know the best way of not having to put up cookie banners on your website? Don't store PII in cookies. You know the best way of not having to care about GDPR? Don't store PII.

replies(5): >>42142003 #>>42142011 #>>42142019 #>>42142081 #>>42142098 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[14 Nov 24 22:45 UTC] No.42142011[source]▶
> shame that the blame somehow end up on the regulation, rather than the companies who are the ones who introduce this cookie banner and "massive productivity loss"

You can wish upon a star that humans weren’t the way we are. In the real world, this was a predictable response to a stupid rule. (And in some cases a necessary one. For example, for websites requiring a login or reliant on ads.)

> know the best way of not having to care about GDPR? Don't store PII

This is a nothing to hide argument [1]. Proving compliance with GDPR is tedious and expensive even if you’re fully compliant. (Proving no jurisdiction is easier.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

replies(2): >>42142036 #>>42142159 #
diggan ◴[14 Nov 24 22:47 UTC] No.42142036[source]▶
> this was a predictable response to a stupid rule

It was predictable that ultimately people would blame the regulation instead of the companies? Not sure I understand what you mean, and even if you meant what I think you meant, not sure what the point is? People blame all sorts of things all the time...

Edit since you've added more to your comment

> Proving compliance with GDPR is tedious

That's my point. No need to prove compliance if GDPR doesn't apply.

replies(2): >>42142042 #>>42142054 #
gjsman-1000[dead post] ◴[14 Nov 24 22:48 UTC] No.42142042[source]▶
[flagged]
diggan ◴[14 Nov 24 22:51 UTC] No.42142077{3}[source]▶
Except it's not that black and white. If you follow the regulation too loosely, you get warnings. If you then ignore the problem, you'd get bigger problems. But no one is gonna put a "10% of global turnover" as a fine immediately.
replies(1): >>42142085 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[14 Nov 24 22:52 UTC] No.42142085{4}[source]▶
> But no one is gonna put a "10% of global turnover" as a fine immediately.

You're dealing with the EU. Stupidly high fines happen weekly.

replies(2): >>42142103 #>>42142261 #
1. Cthulhu_ ◴[14 Nov 24 23:12 UTC] No.42142261{5}[source]▶
After multiple warnings and lawsuits, sure. Conform to the rules if you don't want the fines. But these companies are so big and rich, they'd rather break the rules and risk a fine than give up on their sweet data. And even if they get sued, they have armies of lawyers - still cheaper to spend millions on lawyers than pay a hundreds of millions fine.