That's how you do a cookie notice.

To be fair, they could make it a little bigger, scrolling that tiny thing is a bit of a pain in the ass...
Though it is refreshing to see a honest, detailed explanation of what they're actually doing

@jespersh It's only two boxes.

Please God no. Enough of the cookie notices! One warning by the browser is sufficient. What genius decided that every separate website should be responsible of notifying the user of the same thing, each in their own uniquely irritating way??

This'll just overwhelm average users so they'll accept quickly without opting out.

@caolan On default the details aren't shown. You only have the 4 boxes.

That is cookiebot, which is found on many sites since May 25th...

80 freaking marketing cookies!?! #FU

@devios1 well, it’s law now (GDPR). Warnings are not sufficient, you are required to get a consent from the user before you set those cookies

@not-sure I’m pretty sure it’s only law in the apparently tech-illiterate EU. I will never put a cookie warning on my website. What an absolute joke. Fucking arrest me if you have to.

I can’t believe there are developers defending this bullshit. In what world does it make sense for this responsibility to fall to the page author, when the browser is fully capable of handling this itself automatically for all websites with no stupid annoying popup tabs? I’m serious, are they actually just that dumb?

@devios1 Because the website author is collecting the data and not the browser

@FilipeRamalho but the browser is capable of implementing this decision automatically for every website using the same consistent interface.

Browsers simply need a setting: always allow websites to use cookies, always disallow, or always ask.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

By forcing EVERY. SINGLE. SITE. to do this on their own, you get a thousand different implementations of the same thing and waste billions of dollars in development costs when you consider how much each company has had to spend on doing something they never should have had to.

It’s just absolute absurdity. It’s a fucking embarrassment of the EU.

@FilipeRamalho Also they’re not *collecting* data, they’re *storing* it. They are authoring the data and storing it on your computer.

@devios1 It's still collecting and it's the responsibilty of the site owner. If the browser has a system to opt-in automatically and the user is aware it applies everywhere there could be a new javascript method to retrieve current opt-in status, but the browser can't unilateral do that.
If a trilateral system is made (user is asked to opt-in/-out on cookies on every partner site-> browser store the decision -> partner site retrieves and acts according) it would be probably legal, but that system has to be created and until then the site owners have to ask on their own. If you want you can contact the browser code maintainers and give thim this idea or request for implementation in JS.

The site owners just need a consent, the EU doesn't enforce a per-page consent.
[Disclaimer: I have limited knowledge of the current cookie policy so this may be wrong]

Can you imagine if every game you played had to ask permission to store save-games on your computer? Can you imagine if every app you installed on your phone had to ask permission to store data on your device, and then promptly forgot about it the next time you launch the app and have to answer the same question again?

That’s where we now are with cookies. Cookies are just temporary storage for websites’ *own data* on your computer, yet for some reason we now have to give permission for every fucking website under the sun just to store a couple kilobytes of text.

The only time you actually run into privacy/security concerns is when an embedded iframe has access to its own cookies as well as the content of the parent page, but afaik the GDPR doesn’t say anything about that. Apple has had to take it upon themselves to block this in Safari.

GDPR notices are doing absolutely nothing for security, yet are costing the world billions of dollars in pointless development costs, and are serving only to piss off countless users on a daily basis.

@devios1 A lot of cookies are excempt http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/...
"For consent to be valid, it must be informed, specific, freely given and must constitute a real indication of the individual's wishes." So a trilateral system (mentioned above) might be possible and by that it isn't the fault of EU legislation, but rather we nedd that system.
It doesn't say anywhere there must be a consent each time something is stored, so when that is the case it's rather poor web developement.
The GDPR isn't about security, but rather about privacy.
The EU has the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR.

@FilipeRamalho What benefit does it serve to require consent be explicit? Why isn’t a single browser setting that says “allow cookies on all websites” enough to be considered consent for all websites?

And secondly why is consent even needed? Why make a fuss about cookies in the first place? I honestly don’t think people even know what cookies are. The page is storing its own data (like settings in an app). It’s not your data, unless you gave it to the page.

Yes it can store tracking identifiers, such as google analytics etc, but these are just used to correlate data to the same session, and again only to the page actually authoring it.

@devios1 I think you're missing the point. What I'm basically saying is that the one browser one cookie consent is possible and is legal, but it simply doesn't exist, so don't culprit the EU.

Consent is needed, because they are using your computer to save stuff and again this could be done only once, but there isn't a system for browser-wide consent and some cookie notices forgot the consent. So a browser-wide consent system and better cookie implementation is needed.
The tracker question is again a whole other discussion which is correlated with the GDPR.

[Disclaimer: I only have limited knowledge about the current EU cookie policy, so this may be wrong]

@FilipeRamalho There are about 5 major browsers compared to hundreds of millions of websites. I’m blaming the EU for failing to follow the DRY principle resulting in an excessive waste of money. It’s an utter failure of a solution in my books.

And who is GDPR actually helping anyway? What crimes is it preventing? It’s not protecting my personal data from Google or Facebook, so what is it doing exactly?

I’d like to know what I’m getting out of having to dismiss these cookie notices on every website I go to.

To me the GDPR just shows that the EU has no idea how technology works and/or are distracting the public from the true data crimes that are happening in the world right now: things like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

Furthermore, why does the EU feel it has the right to inflict this cost and annoyance upon me? Why, as a Canadian citizen, am I not exempt from this shit? I didn’t agree to this. I certainly didn’t vote for it.

In one fell swoop the EU has somehow managed to fuck the whole internet.

Cambridge Analytica is maybe one of the most reported personal data breach after the NSA "scandal" (It wasn't that suprising). What about the GDPR shows the EU doesn't know how tech works ? The GDPR protects your data from Google and Facebook.

And one thing else: "MOST OF THE GDPR WAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN MANY EU COUNTRIES OWN DATA LAWS" It mostly wasn't anything new. I think this discussion won't have any clear conclusion and isn't really productive or showing me new arguments or facts, so I may not answer back.