US companies that operate in the EU market, handle EU citizens data. Obviously the EU regulations cover them. Do you think European companies don’t have to follow US regulations when offering their services in the US?
What, you mean if they want to do business in the EU, sell their products in the EU and process the data of EU citizens?
> Every time I click on a stupid cookie notice I fondly think of the EU.
That’s just scumbag malpractice on purpose.
Number one, such tracking consent should have been a web standard and set in the browser itself (like Do Not Track), not stupid per-site banners that are designed to get you to accept everything just to make them fuck off. We shouldn’t even need extensions etc. to get rid of them, it’s like the problem was solved at the wrong level and in the worst way possible.
Secondly, everyone responsible for the state of those banners should have been fined greatly. I only say fined because claiming that some people should be in jail over coercing millions of people to give up their data to trackers would apparently be unreasonable.
Did that seem like I said something about EU politics? Did my support of their comments make you feel attacked or unfairly treated? Where is this coming from?
I'm curious if that (noticably) diminishes the quality of the output.
Alternatively, if you need a cookie banner for every bit of analytics...
Name: cck3
Service: Cookie consent kit
Purpose: Stores your preferences for 3rd-party cookies (so you won't be asked again)
Cookie type and duration: First-party session cookie deleted after you quit your browser
My website doesn't have a banner because I don't track you. That's how easy it is to not have a cookie banner.
If it's "even this eu site chooses to track you, therefore it's unreasonable for anyone to not track you" that's a weird point to make in reply to a comment explicitly showing a counter example.
It demonstrates to the rest of the world how to be compliant with the cookie consent. If there was a less intrusive way to do it, the EU sites aren't demonstrating how to do it that way but instead have chosen to use a cookie banner that shows up every browser session. Secondly, the law is written so that any cookie requires that banner. Store a language selection in a cookie (clientlanguage - Cookie holding the user’s language selection - First-party persistent cookie, 30 days) and you need that banner.
The cookie notice isn't the "fault" of the site that you're visiting. Minimal client side data storing in cookies that isn't tracking a user's identity requires the banner.
The GDPR's cookie consent was written far too broadly to the extent that any use of cookies - even if they don't track an identity - requires a cookie consent banner.
The result of the ubiquitous cookie banner is that every site has it and people ignore it. This sort of alert fatigue makes it so that when there's a site that is following the law and is giving excessive tracking cookies that people don't see it as any worse than a site that is persisting if you prefer dark mode across browser sessions.
Furthermore, since it is so common, people become blind to it. Often people will install extensions to dismiss the banner so that companies that sites that aren't presenting the banner for the tracking data appear exactly the same.
As the law is written, sites that scrupulously following the GDPR are providing coverage for those that are not while simultaneously annoying people with a banner that everyone clicks some form of "accept" (be it all or essential only) training people to blindly click "accept" banners that pop up whenever they see them and contributing to the spread of malware.
That is not true. Cookies that are essential to providing the service the user expects to not require a cookie banner. People just add them because they either can't be bothered to read the rules or because they are doing tracking and things the user does not want.
A cookie banner always means the site is trying to get your clearance to do something you probably don't want.
Stores your cookie preferences (so you won’t be asked again)
Cookie holding the user’s language selection
Cookie storing the user’s preference when in mobile but he desires to switch to desktop view
Cookies related to the expand/collapse state of panels
Cookie storing the user’s preferences on the activation/deactivation of experimental features
Cookie storing information on which experimental features the user has activated
We use these purely for internal research on how we can improve the service we provide for all our users.
The cookies simply assess how you interact with our website — as an anonymous user (the data gathered does not identify you personally).
Also, this data is not shared with any third parties or used for any other purpose. The anonymised statistics could be shared with contractors working on communication projects under contractual agreement with the Publications Office.
Given that that is the GDPR site, are they being overly strict in their own reading of the GDPR and the requirements for cookie consent?
But so am I. A cookie banner is asking clearance to store stuff in your browser right now and it's always tracking shit. Most of those at the top would be covered by "essential cookies" which explicitly lists appearance preferences. For more advanced stuff, which is usually SPA territory, the app can ask for your clearance when it's necessary e.g. "Save your session in your browser for later?" rather than some generic cookie banner shite.
We, uh… started a war that we’re trying to drag many European countries into, and we spent a good chunk of the last year threatening to invade a member of the EU. We’re on and off about trying to start a trade war with the EU.
At this point, you have absolutely every right to comment on our politics, pretty much however you want.
OpenAI doesn't have that reputation.
That's all.
> I hardly see how the Dow Jones in relevant here, that’s finance
Not Dow Jones. DoW = Department of War.