←back to thread

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

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 3 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
snehk ◴[15 Nov 24 07:20 UTC] No.42144605[source]▶
The whole law should have been forcing sites to not ignore DoNotTrack bworser settings. It's a prime example of the EU being utterly useless because they don't understand the underlying issue and then choose a "solution" that's as much in your face as possible but doesn't change anything about the original problem. It's the whole plastic straw thing in digital form.
replies(6): >>42144718 #>>42144827 #>>42144959 #>>42144994 #>>42145015 #>>42145633 #
1. mpeg ◴[15 Nov 24 08:41 UTC] No.42144994[source]▶
I don't think DNT settings were not considered – they were probably discarded as they hurt user privacy. Fingerprinting tools use the DNT setting as an extra flag to identify the user, so having it set to a non-default means you actually get tracked more, not less.
replies(1): >>42145140 #
2. bawolff ◴[15 Nov 24 09:06 UTC] No.42145140[source]▶
The cookie banners still have to be implemented somehow. I dont think there is a difference in the amount of tracking here.
replies(1): >>42145229 #
3. mpeg ◴[15 Nov 24 09:23 UTC] No.42145229[source]▶
My point is that if the tracking settings came from the browser whether it was DNT or another one, they would actually be used to track people more effectively by bad actors