- cross-posted to:
- buyeuropean@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- buyeuropean@feddit.uk
Tired of misleading cookie banners? The EU Commission has finally proposed a solution: set your privacy preferences in the browser once, and never see another banner. Unfortunately, the tracking industry is pushing back – and so far, they’ve been successful. We need YOUR help to #KillTheCookieBanner!
You must log in or # to comment.
The EU back when they were deciding GDPR decided not to use the browser’s “do not track me”. The W3C even tried to help them and during the making of GDPR a commission even recommended using DNT signals.
Capitalism and advertisers won of course and they decided not to follow DNT signals from the browser. Why will they change their mind this time?
Because it actually impacts themselves in a visible way
Maybe because before it was out of sight and out of mind. But now it’s in all their constituents’ faces, and we’re annoyed
I am in favour. Until then you can use consent-o-mattic to actively deny cookies instead of just hiding the element.
I was about to recommend Consent-O-Matic! Digi-gods bless Aarhus University and their compsci students for building something so wonderfully useful.
A link that @syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de commented on a crosspost of this post:
Denying consent is just 1 part of the puzzle. You will still be accepting all “legitimate interests”.
Who the fuck defines “legitimate” interest anyway, they can go fuck themselves with their “legitimate”, I hate it so much
For the past 10 years or so tracking is done with hardware fingerprinting anyways. Cookies are of the past.
Genuinely curious, why can’t browsers add some (non meaningful to users) jitter to values used in fingerprints such that fingerprints become random for a single user?
They totally can. They just don’t really care, because they are mostly funded by advertisers.
Laws don’t care about technical ‘gotchas’. If the law says tracking is illegal, it’s illegal whether it relies on cookies, fingerprinting, magic pixie dust, or literally any other applied phlebotinum you could possibly think of. It simply does not matter what the means are if the intent is to track.
I understand the argument, but afaik the laws that made poeple create cookie banners do not really care whether it’s a cookie or some other identification. Consent has to be granted for any sort of tracking.
However, as far as I understand, at least in some parts of the world, this is only true for 3rd party tracking solutions. So long as people can’t be identified and everything stays with your own host, consent would legally be unnecessary anyway.
More accurately, there has never been a EU law that forced people to create cookie banners.
The EU law required websites to have the users’ consent to use personal data and tracking. The law never even mentioned the word “banner” but this is what the industry chose as a solution.
Furthermore consent is not needed for functional cookies. So all websites that enforce cookie banners upon users do really use tracking/data sharing or their partners (such as Google Analytics) do.
I am not against cookie banners, I own a few web apps and each of them have proper configurable cookie settings (including the banner).
All I am saying is that most companies (especially one’s that do not reside in EU) do not care and will track you across websites by fingerprinting your hardware when visiting their website. Some do not even use cookies at all.
I own a few web apps and each of them have proper configurable cookie settings (including the banner).
Configurable cookie settings are not “proper.” Unconfigurable eschewing of not-strictly-functional cookies is “proper.”
Don’t delude yourself into thinking your goddamned malicious compliance is “proper!”
Hardware fingerprinting doesn’t work very well when the hash changes significantly when your battery charge changes one percent.
Which hash exactly? They don’t have to include your battery percentage if they don’t want it.
I hope this becomes mandatory, I think DNT failed because it wasn’t
dnt failed because it relied on you sending more information to sites you visited.
