upvote
The law does not say 'tracking'. It says 'strictly necessary'. If you remember the user's light/dark theme preference in a cookie, that requires notification. (Or rather, what it requires in practice is that you hire a Highly Paid Consultant.)
reply
No, it doesn't. If it's reasonably expected as part of the service, you don't need to gather consent. It's not even personal data.
reply
The law does not say 'reasonably expected', it says 'strictly necessary'.
reply
Sorry, getting my GDPR and e-privacy terms mixed up. The cookie is strictly necessary for the setting to be saved. The user has specifically requested that the setting be saved by changing it. The opinion suggests this should be a session cookie unless you indicate somewhere prominently next to the setting that it uses cookies to store it for longer. This still doesn't require a cookie banner.

What's more, if the 'cookie' is entirely local (i.e. it's never sent back to your own server, e.g. you're using the local storage API and the javascript on your page never puts that information into a request), like how this would normally be implemented nowadays, then these requirements don't apply at all (because a cookie according to the law is just something your server gives to the user's device and then the device gives back later).

reply
Okay, but it doesn’t require notification for every user that hits your landing page.

If you want to remember dark mode with a cookie, then you can just gate that setting behind a “allow functional cookies” toggle.

Getting consent for functional cookies doesn’t have to be done with an intrusive cookie bar on landing. You can request consent as it becomes needed. There’s other ways of complying that aren’t dark patterns.

reply
OK, so don't do that. Web sites work fine without remembering anonymous users' preferences across sessions.
reply
Nonsense.

You are correct that people keep stating such things. But it is incorrect.

That example would be an essential cookie, also known as a strictly necessary cookie.

A shame this FUD is still being spread.

reply
That's not what various references (and AIs) say. Strictly necessary means strictly necessary. They didn't bother defining it in the law. However, user preferences were called out specifically in the WP29 opinion as something that wouldn't count as strictly necessary if scoped any wider than the browser session. So if the plain English meaning and the drafters' opinion contradicts your opinion, why should I risk significant fines to trust it?
reply
I am obviously referring to a scenario where tracking cookies would be highly beneficial to expanding the business, e.g. e-commerce.
reply
Don't set a tracking cookie, use of IP addresses is allowed for legitimate purposes (Art 6(1)(f)) as long as they're not stored.

At least for GDPR...

The only ways to actually track without a consent pop-up are:

(1) stay off the device entirely and process server-transmitted data under legitimate interests with a privacy notice, or

(2) confine any device storage to what's strictly necessary for the service the user requested

reply
This goes to show that the assertion that cookie banners are just "malicious compliance" isn't quite correct. These are significant trade-offs here.
reply
you don’t need to track users by giving them an ID they send with every request.

in fact. you probably don’t need to track users.

reply
tracking cookies are so obviously beneficial to e-commerce that they passed an entire law to disclose them because people... liked them so much?
reply
I don't exactly see how these two statements are contradictory. Policy is about conflicting interests.
reply