The GDPR obliges all companies to provide an option for users to receive all data held on them; takeout and FB'd equivalent were implemented in response to that. For all other companies, at least if you are in the EU,…
Another view might be that this means you are investing in the community behind it and some of the leading people who hopefully will help to ensure that the project lives on.
Original report and PR: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
Yes I absolutely agree it can be useful.anf satisfying to see analytics. But it also means you send your users' data to another place where you know it will be recycled etc. There are alternatives but as you say sadly…
Technically necessary cookies are fine. If those go beyond that it would be against the law... If you're in the EU.
But it's not cookie consent, it's tracking consent.
It's not just cookies though, it's tracking in general which you should also be able to turn off (but impossible at browser level).
The law is not about cookies, it's about an obligation to inform on and let users opt out of tracking features that go beyond technically necessary features.
They are not mandatory, it's a choice by the site owner to include them. They are only mandatory if you include tracking features that track users across the web (= ads and Google analytics).
Most of Europeans do. You might not care in the moment but you will care if you know how these profiles are used, sold and resold, ...
Gdpr does not force the banners. It forces to ask for consent before tracking users across sites. This doesn't have to be a banner and it doesn't have to be if you only use technical cookies (login, session, ..) You…
Not because of the law but because those pushing tracking and designing the banners intentionally make them intrusjve. Purely technical cookies (eg login, spam protection) don't need a consent by the user.
No website needs GA. You choose to have it for whatever reason but there's not ever a need to use GA. There are many less intrusive ways to father statistics than to sell your users to Google.
Technical cookies don't need consent.
How many sites have seriously thought about reducing Google analytics and intrusive ads? If it's even 1% then the banners unequivocally HAVE made the web better.
Giving you the right to get a copy of data held by Facebook & co!
Eu lawmaking in a nutshell: Commission (leaders of which are selected by your government that you presumably voted for) makes a draft. Commission consults widely (usually online consultation) and all national ministries…
For login, payment etc you would have "technical" cookies, the ones essential to run the site. They don't need a consent.
Why add GA then? It's user hostile and there are better and more compliant ways to track basic analytics.
Most websites wouldn't need them to begin with (except to use Google analytics and ads). You can do basic user statistics without active tracking and for technical cookies the banners (nor any other form of consents) is…
The legislation was long overdue. It's a bit more complex than it ought to be but the intentions are just fine. The issue is that there's a huge number of organisations that prefer not to comply or have every intention…
This 100x. Provider that gives me 1-5 check marks to make once (and where the default settings are "off"?) - trustworthy. Anything like Verizon properties which gives an intentionally bad UX with thousands of clicks,…
I don't click every consent banner and you also shouldn't. You'd be surprised how many accept a No just fine, which is the intended use.
That's not the law, that's the implementation that's the issue. The same EU body quoted above has passed the message for a long time that that's not needed eg for purely technical cookies.
What's not conform? That's a language selection screen, not a cookie screen. In the banner at the top you can click "decline".
The GDPR obliges all companies to provide an option for users to receive all data held on them; takeout and FB'd equivalent were implemented in response to that. For all other companies, at least if you are in the EU,…
Another view might be that this means you are investing in the community behind it and some of the leading people who hopefully will help to ensure that the project lives on.
Original report and PR: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
Yes I absolutely agree it can be useful.anf satisfying to see analytics. But it also means you send your users' data to another place where you know it will be recycled etc. There are alternatives but as you say sadly…
Technically necessary cookies are fine. If those go beyond that it would be against the law... If you're in the EU.
But it's not cookie consent, it's tracking consent.
It's not just cookies though, it's tracking in general which you should also be able to turn off (but impossible at browser level).
The law is not about cookies, it's about an obligation to inform on and let users opt out of tracking features that go beyond technically necessary features.
They are not mandatory, it's a choice by the site owner to include them. They are only mandatory if you include tracking features that track users across the web (= ads and Google analytics).
Most of Europeans do. You might not care in the moment but you will care if you know how these profiles are used, sold and resold, ...
Gdpr does not force the banners. It forces to ask for consent before tracking users across sites. This doesn't have to be a banner and it doesn't have to be if you only use technical cookies (login, session, ..) You…
Not because of the law but because those pushing tracking and designing the banners intentionally make them intrusjve. Purely technical cookies (eg login, spam protection) don't need a consent by the user.
No website needs GA. You choose to have it for whatever reason but there's not ever a need to use GA. There are many less intrusive ways to father statistics than to sell your users to Google.
Technical cookies don't need consent.
How many sites have seriously thought about reducing Google analytics and intrusive ads? If it's even 1% then the banners unequivocally HAVE made the web better.
Giving you the right to get a copy of data held by Facebook & co!
Eu lawmaking in a nutshell: Commission (leaders of which are selected by your government that you presumably voted for) makes a draft. Commission consults widely (usually online consultation) and all national ministries…
For login, payment etc you would have "technical" cookies, the ones essential to run the site. They don't need a consent.
Why add GA then? It's user hostile and there are better and more compliant ways to track basic analytics.
Most websites wouldn't need them to begin with (except to use Google analytics and ads). You can do basic user statistics without active tracking and for technical cookies the banners (nor any other form of consents) is…
The legislation was long overdue. It's a bit more complex than it ought to be but the intentions are just fine. The issue is that there's a huge number of organisations that prefer not to comply or have every intention…
This 100x. Provider that gives me 1-5 check marks to make once (and where the default settings are "off"?) - trustworthy. Anything like Verizon properties which gives an intentionally bad UX with thousands of clicks,…
I don't click every consent banner and you also shouldn't. You'd be surprised how many accept a No just fine, which is the intended use.
That's not the law, that's the implementation that's the issue. The same EU body quoted above has passed the message for a long time that that's not needed eg for purely technical cookies.
What's not conform? That's a language selection screen, not a cookie screen. In the banner at the top you can click "decline".