←back to thread

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

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 5 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.895s | source
Show context
uniqueuid ◴[15 Nov 24 08:34 UTC] No.42144954[source]▶
I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread.

Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner.

There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident that losing time over privacy is so horrible. In fact, when designing a law that enhances consumer rights through informed consent, it is inevitable that this imposes additional time spent on thinking, considering and acting.

It's the whole point, folks! You cannot have an informed case-by-case decision without spending time.

replies(16): >>42145020 #>>42145131 #>>42145155 #>>42145209 #>>42145333 #>>42145656 #>>42145815 #>>42145852 #>>42146272 #>>42146629 #>>42147195 #>>42147452 #>>42147781 #>>42148046 #>>42148053 #>>42150487 #
1. bawolff ◴[15 Nov 24 09:05 UTC] No.42145131[source]▶
> The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner.

Would there exist any other method of implementing it that would be substantially different? Its hard to imagine. I suppose they could implement it by not having tracking cookies.

I think the ideal situation is that people could just set it as a browser preference and be done with it. Oh wait they already can.

replies(2): >>42145177 #>>42146192 #
2. GJim ◴[15 Nov 24 09:12 UTC] No.42145177[source]▶
Setting a browser preference is not giving explicit opt-in informed consent to handle my personal data (for that is what this is about) on a case by case basis.

That is what the law requires.

Blame the unnecessary gathering of personal data (and think about why they want it!), not the 'cookie law'.

3. dspillett ◴[15 Nov 24 12:12 UTC] No.42146192[source]▶
It is more than about using cookies, despite the regulations being informally called cookie laws, any tracking and storage of PII is covered.

> Would there exist any other method of implementing it that would be substantially different?

A checkbox or button, anywhere on the page, that you can click to opt-in or ignore to not op-in. Once clicked the site/app has consent to track that consent, so the box can stay ticked (or be moved out of the way entirely as long as a way to retract consent is easily available, perhaps via an obvious link in page footers). Done. Informed consent implemented in a way that doesn't irritate any user (those that care either way, and those that don't care at all).

They could even include a short bit of text begging people to opt in because it helps their site/app make more money from advertisers, without going as far as a pop-over or otherwise wasting a large portion of screen space.

> Its hard to imagine.

For those with very little imagination, perhaps.

> … ideal situation is that people … set … a browser preference …. Oh wait they already can.

Only with regard to cookies, and perhaps other local storage, which as I stated at the top is not at all the whole matter. And even within those limitations those options are rather ineffective against the experienced stalkers that the advertising industry consists of, because they can and will simply ignore things like DNT and will work around cookie/localstorage/other blocks using various other fingerprinting tricks.

replies(1): >>42148028 #
4. Ylpertnodi ◴[15 Nov 24 15:56 UTC] No.42148028[source]▶
>A checkbox or button, anywhere on the page, that you can click to opt-in or ignore to not op-in.

How about no click to opt out, and a click to opt in?

replies(1): >>42154291 #
5. dspillett ◴[16 Nov 24 04:37 UTC] No.42154291{3}[source]▶
That is essentially what I said, the default state being opted-out rather than there being an in/out/unknown tri-state, so my "ignore" and your "no click" are the same [in]action.