- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes, they are correct in that there is no law requiring a banner popup. Functional cookies are always allowed, and you could always default to just not track people so you don’t need their consent either.
But if you want the user to give consent for the tracking cookies, and basically any site with advertisements really wants you to, then the popup is required, because the alternative - a disclaiming saying “by continuing to use you give consent bla bla bla” - has been deemed illegal. You need to get the user to actively opt-in to them and press I accept, and that means you nag at them with a popup. DNT header was a fantastic idea, for the users. Of course they didn’t want to use it, as it would have to also be opt-in (and so default to do not track) and probably 99.9% of browser users never change the default settings.
So while there is no law that says “you need a cookie consent popup”, there also effectively is.
Context aware advertisement doesn’t need spying on users and hasn’t been shown to be significantly less effective.
Yeah but it’s more work for the website to implement their own ad-contexts, so obviously the website owner is the problem here /s
You can absolutely track people on your own website, if you store that data locally and anonymized. Matomo is always an option instead of Google Analytics.
Well you still need consent
Lawyer of my former employer says no, you don’t. If you don’t combine that tracking data with personal information and don’t track them on other websites and store locally without giving any information to third parties.
The thing is, when the GDPR landed, the ad industry obviously had to convince their customers that ads were still viable.
So, even though it sounds completely backwards, they were at the forefront of GDPR consultancy and had their cookie banner implementations ready to boot.And while I don’t think, what they told those companies were complete lies (only because lying in consultancy is illegal), but well, at the very least, I expect them to not have proactively told them that you could also do advertising without tracking, let alone no advertising at all.
- “We value your privacy”
- “Here is a list of 800 of our partners that we might or might not share your data with, you can select the ones you don’t like, it only takes 10 minutes or so”
lol
Totally agree, except: Ads are completely viable. The industry wants to sell creepy ads though. Not because they’re actually much better at convincing people to buy shit (which is something they can’t measure properly) but because clients pay more for them
The lawmakers still lacked foresight. The real mistake was to not either force browser vendors to solve this on their end (cookie options SUCK on all browsers) or to make Do Not Track legally binding.
Life hack:
0.0.0.0 cdn.privacy-mgmt.com 0.0.0.0 cdn.cookielaw.org 0.0.0.0 consent.truste.com 0.0.0.0 launchpad.privacymanager.io cmp-consent-tool.privacymanager.io launchpad-wrapper.privacymanager.io 0.0.0.0 cdn.consentmanager.net c.delivery.consentmanager.net 0.0.0.0 consent.cookiebot.com consentcdn.cookiebot.com 0.0.0.0 sourcepoint.mgr.consensu.orgBlocking any domain that has “consent” in it is never a mistake.
Don’t do this in a Hosts file unless you absolutely have to because of your device type. Block those domains using an ad blocker instead, so you can opt in when a website actually breaks. (It’s not that often because all those external dependencies are usually completely extraneous. But it does happen.)
