EDIT: I didn’t realize the anger this would bring out of people. It was supposed to be a funny meme based on recent real-life situations I’ve encountered, not an attack on the EU.

I appreciate the effort of the EU cookie laws. The practice of them just doesn’t live up to the theory of the law. Shady companies are always going to find a way to be shady.

  • DeriHunter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Serious question: I know that there are tracking cookies and the user should be able to decline those,but most sites have an auth cookie that stores you’re credentials. The devs can store it in a different place like local storage but thats really unsecured.what can the devs do in this situation when the user decline all cookies?

    • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The eu rules are mostly about unnecessary cookies. Most web devs just copied whatever everyone else was doing and now there’s this standard of having to accept cookies but the EU doesn’t really enforce it like that

  • hdnsmbt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s fine. People who don’t care about cookies will accept them anyway and those who do care about cookies will know not to visit that site anymore.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it is great here.

        Either the website is great and doesn’t ask anything.

        Or it asks for cookie consent, which you can decline in 1 click.

        Or it pulls one of those “break the website” tricks which will get them sued sooner or later.

        Or they block access to EU members, at which point you know they only exist to extract your data anyway.

  • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Road to hell, good intentions and all that. Government fundamentally misunderstanding the role of cookies and the fact that browsers can handle user privacy with trivial effort by default rather than having every single website annoy the fuck out of you with a million goddamn notifications before actually showing you what you want to see.

    • kornel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The annoying popups are an act of malicious compliance from data harvesting companies. The tracking industry wants people to associate the right to privacy with stupid annoyance, so that people will stop demanding privacy.

      The legislation does not say anything about cookies. It’s about rights and responsibilities in data collection (no matter how it’s done technically). The “consent” part of it exists as a compromise, because there has been heavy lobbying against the legislation.

      This is not a technical problem — we’ve had many technologies for it, and the industry has sabotaged all of them. There was the P3P spec in 2002! It has been implemented in IE that had 90%+ market share back then. And Google has been actively exploiting a loophole in IE’s implementation to bypass it and have unlimited tracking. Google has paid fines for actively subverting Safari’s early anti-tracking measures. Then browsers tried DNT spec as the simplest possible opt-out, and even that has been totally rejected by the data harvesting industry. There are easy technical solutions, but there are also literally trillions of dollars at stake, and ad companies will viciously sabotage all of it.

  • Scoopta@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock…and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn’t even be a thing

      • Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They’ll be like “wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing.” Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure breaking your website with no cookies is against the rules, actually. It’s either serve the EU with GDPR-compliance or GTFO entirely.

    Yeah, you could still just break the law, but as usual there’s a cost to that one way or the other.

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare

      • akulium@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t enforcement work by letting competitors sue you if you don’t follow the rules for these things?