EDIT: I didn’t realize the anger this would bring out of people. It was supposed to be a funny meme based on recent real-life situations I’ve encountered, not an attack on the EU.

I appreciate the effort of the EU cookie laws. The practice of them just doesn’t live up to the theory of the law. Shady companies are always going to find a way to be shady.

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      IIRC the EU also ruled that burying the rejection options under additional links counts as a violation. Hence why Google now has a Reject button next to the accept button. Most sites still do that.

    • Sysosmaster@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      even worse offenders are the ones with tick boxes for “Legitimate Interest”, since legitimate interest is another grounds for processing (just ads freely given consent is one), the fact you got a “tick” box for it makes it NOT legitimate interest within the confines of the GDPR.

      it also doesn’t matter what technology you use whether its cookies / urls / images / local storage / spy satellites. its solely about how you use the data…

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      But what are they going to do about it?

      “Here’s a fine, if you don’t pay it your site can no longer operate in the EU”

      “… ok”

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        The EU is an important market for many websites, so yeah, that is usually what happens.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          We’re specifically discussing websites that refuse to load in the EU anyways as per the post

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I understood the post as those webpages only refusing to load, if the user declines Cookies. So, they do still want to benefit off of those EU users, who click “Accept”.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nearly all of these are illegal, but sadly there is little enforcement when it comes to this. (Tracking must be opt-in, not opt-out. Ignoring a banner must be interpreted as declining. Opting out must be a simple option, not navigating a complex and misleading menus. The users choice applies to any form of tracking, not just cookies…)

  • Scoopta@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock…and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn’t even be a thing

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sites that block adblock - I have network based filtering I’m not going to take the time to specifically figure out what ad providers you’re using (which is probably that same as everyone else) just to unblock your shitty site.

      • Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They’ll be like “wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing.” Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d guess they just want to keep track of what you read and how many articles. You still can wipe that information from your browser but private browsing makes it more convenient so they ban it

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m pretty sure breaking your website with no cookies is against the rules, actually. It’s either serve the EU with GDPR-compliance or GTFO entirely.

    Yeah, you could still just break the law, but as usual there’s a cost to that one way or the other.

    • Vuraniute@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      this. and honestly I wish more websites followed the “serve under gdpr or don’t have a European marker”. A random blog once wasn’t available in the EU because of GDPR. And you know what? It’s better than them violating GDPR and the EU doing nothing.

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare

  • Gamey@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I generally agree with the statment under that image and it’s certainly a funny meme but also Illegal, sadly the enforcment is a joke but that’s not really the laws fault!

  • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Your meme is funny, but people genuinely use these arguments to be against sensible EU laws, hence the response I imagine.

  • drkt@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Oh boo I can’t visit American propaganda websites what a loss to my European life style

    • MDFL@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. Your comment is propaganda.

        • Tony Smehrik@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It means “something bad that I disagree with”, synonymous with communism, socialism, democrats, and Nazis, at least that’s what Infowars tells me.

          • Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Infowars tells you Nazis are something you disagree with? Haven’t heard from them in a while. Would have thought they’d quietly drop the Nazis are evil thing.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago
    1. This was not about cookies, but processing of personal data and new definitions of such data. Cookies was just an example.
    2. By those laws, forcing user to consent with denying access to the service is declared illegal.
  • hdnsmbt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s fine. People who don’t care about cookies will accept them anyway and those who do care about cookies will know not to visit that site anymore.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        People complaining about the cookie law don’t understand the issue.

        The law doesn’t state that websites have to show a cookie banner. It states that if a website wants to track you with cookies, they have to ask permission.

        You can get websites (like lemmy and wikipedia) that don’t ask for cookies, because none of them try to track you.

        So if a websites demands cookies or they don’t allow access, it is a clear sign that the website only cares about your visit if they can invade your privacy for profit.

        Meaning it will just be a dumb clickbait website with no decent content anyway, that you should just skip.

  • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s gotta be quite some website you visited, if it didn’t load at all without cookies. As someone from Germany, who mostly rejects every sites cookies, except for the essential ones most of the time, but sometimes outright rejects all cookies, I’ve never encountered a website that refused to load upon doing that.

    Not defending any webpages that do do that, just contributing my personal experience.

    Also: this for chrome or this for fiefrerfx

  • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Road to hell, good intentions and all that. Government fundamentally misunderstanding the role of cookies and the fact that browsers can handle user privacy with trivial effort by default rather than having every single website annoy the fuck out of you with a million goddamn notifications before actually showing you what you want to see.

    • kornel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The annoying popups are an act of malicious compliance from data harvesting companies. The tracking industry wants people to associate the right to privacy with stupid annoyance, so that people will stop demanding privacy.

      The legislation does not say anything about cookies. It’s about rights and responsibilities in data collection (no matter how it’s done technically). The “consent” part of it exists as a compromise, because there has been heavy lobbying against the legislation.

      This is not a technical problem — we’ve had many technologies for it, and the industry has sabotaged all of them. There was the P3P spec in 2002! It has been implemented in IE that had 90%+ market share back then. And Google has been actively exploiting a loophole in IE’s implementation to bypass it and have unlimited tracking. Google has paid fines for actively subverting Safari’s early anti-tracking measures. Then browsers tried DNT spec as the simplest possible opt-out, and even that has been totally rejected by the data harvesting industry. There are easy technical solutions, but there are also literally trillions of dollars at stake, and ad companies will viciously sabotage all of it.