←back to thread

332 points vegasbrianc | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
uniqueuid ◴[] 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 #
GardenLetter27 ◴[] No.42148046[source]
But you're the one saving and sending the cookies anyway - not the website.

If you don't want to send some of them, then just configure your client not to do that.

It's bizarre that the onus is put on the websites themselves to request consent before requesting that the client sets the cookies.

replies(1): >>42148507 #
1. TheCoelacanth ◴[] No.42148507[source]
The law isn't about cookies; it's about tracking regardless of the technical means used to implement it.