zlacker

Sadly they have no control over the cookie warnings

>>ramon1+(OP)
Of course they do. They aren't forced to use cookies that require user consent.

>>ramon1+(OP)
Out of the four categories they show only one needs consent: targeted ads, the others can be fully anonymous. The "essential cookies" can't be disabled, the "analytics" can be fully anonymous, the "personalisation" can be fully anonymous.

>>ramon1+(OP)
Ummmmm

If they didn't have ads that track me, then they would have no need to ask my permission to use cookies that track me.

There is no requirement so seek permission for other cookies needed to run the website. Quite why some readers of a technical news site (!) are still confused about this is bizzare.

In short, blame the scummy adtech industry. Not the legislation that gives us our privacy.

>>ramon1+(OP)
People say that but it's not really true. If they just have 1P cookies for basic functionality (login), then I believe there can be a discreet notice at the bottom informing the user of that fact. Groups like IEEE should be the ones pioneering those patterns.

>>AdamN+Mx
Not even sure you need any discreet notice about anything for strictly necessary first party cookies. That's my understanding of GDPR, at any rate.

>>lowerc+5C
That's true. Strictly technically necessary cookies do not need consent or even information with a banner. Guess it's nice to know, but probably not legally necessary.

>>lowerc+5C
You don't HAVE TO have a cookie banner for cookies which don't require consent.

Cookies not requiring consent :

  - "technical" cookies: for session, saving some user preferences (consenting to cookies or not, language etc.)
  - cookies used for load balancing or to protect against fraud
  - cookies used to save a cart or used to invoice some service
  - usage statistics cookies IF the data is anonymous

Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.

>>AdamN+Mx
Cookies for auth do not need such thing

>>martin+sD
>Guess it's nice to know

It isnt, why should I care?

>>ramon1+(OP)
You have been brainwashed successfully

>>master+bX
Totally unnecessary personal attack there.

My take: if a law and it's enforcement almost universally lead to a worse outcome, the burden is on the lawmakers and enforcers to do better. You can yell about the websites all you want but being mad at most of the internet at once is a losing game.

>>arkh+mP
But it's so much more effective to pretend like there are onerous requirements imposed by governments that interfere with the user experience. See: TikTok's early and unnecessary self-imposed, location-based shutdown with a pop-up message blaming the big bad government. Bonus points for ass kissing the easily manipulated current administration.

>>martin+sD
Your user agent has different, more reliable ways of informing you of this.

>>davegu+Pq1
Sorry, I don't understand this. They complied with legal requirements a couple of hours before obligated to do so.

Is my understanding of that situation wrong?

>>prerok+DG1
TikTok was not required to restrict access to the app from devices in the US. Rather US companies (web hosting and app stores) were required to cease support. This means app stores like Google and Apple had to prevent downloads and installs (Apple still is). But the blanket shutdown of anyone with GPS coordinates within the US was not required. People were even still allowed to side-load the app where possible like in Android. So, the early and overly restrictive limitations from TikTok was for show and messaging to manipulate public opinion.

Edit Reference:

> If not sold within a year, the law would make it illegal for web-hosting services to support TikTok, and it would force Google and Apple to remove TikTok from app stores — rendering the app unusable with time.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-u...

>>AdamN+Mx
AFAIK, only 3rd party cookies require this consent. I am pretty sure you require consent for 2nd party as well. Your own site's cookies? Do what you want.

GDPR, however, also covers other things like your storing user's data, but that is separate from cookies. Cookies are stored on user's device.

>>prerok+DH1
What do you mean by second party here?

>>missin+Tn1
To say you have fallen for a political play is not a personal attack. It is not some sort of personal failing, but a trap set for you. Informing you of that is a nice thing this person has chosen to do for you.