←back to thread

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

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 2 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
mpeg ◴[15 Nov 24 08:45 UTC] No.42145020[source]▶
What I find funny about the whole thing is that the grand majority of companies with cookie banners are not implementing them correctly, and therefore are still in breach of the law.

I see constantly banners on sites that set tracking cookies by default, and delete them if you reject them in the banner (or even worse, not delete them at all!) – this is not compliant as the cookies were set before consent was given

Also see banners where there is only a big "OK" button, with no visible option to reject, this is also not compliant!

replies(5): >>42145538 #>>42146028 #>>42147215 #>>42147228 #>>42150714 #
weinzierl ◴[15 Nov 24 10:21 UTC] No.42145538[source]▶
One way to see it is that it's their way of passive-aggressive protest against a law they don't want. Maybe the aim was never to abide by the law, just to pretend and annoy people enough to draw them on your side.
replies(3): >>42145560 #>>42146050 #>>42146564 #
1. dspillett ◴[15 Nov 24 11:45 UTC] No.42146050[source]▶
I take an even more cynical view: their intent is far from passive.

They want the end user to be irritated in the extreme. When users complain they'll say “we have to do this, the law says so, look, everyone else is doing the same thing” in the hope that people will support later action to have the privacy protections wound back.

replies(1): >>42147844 #
2. ryandrake ◴[15 Nov 24 15:37 UTC] No.42147844[source]▶
The message from these antagonistic companies is clearly: "Look at what they made me do to you!" And users (even here in the HN comment section) fall for it. Like a beaten spouse. Yessssssss, it's the evil EU.... Why do they force you to beat me up?