But the courts are saying: the law does NOT allow this.
So maybe “malicious compliance” is a misnomer. We should just call it "illegal dark pattern".
So maybe “malicious compliance” is a misnomer. We should just call it "illegal dark pattern".
> […] the Commission is pondering how to tweak the rules to include more exceptions or make sure users can set their preferences on cookies once (for example, in their browser settings) instead of every time they visit a website.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-cookie-law-messed-up-...
But yes, I think your take is more realistic as any measure that allows rapid changes also allows willful politics to rapidly make a mess.
Now the EU just needs to turn it into an actual liability for corporations. Otherwise it will remain as an additional bit of entropy for tracking.
The story that advertisers don't know what users selected and that somehow allows them to track the user is disingenous.
(and frankly, the number of users that actively want to consent to this is essentially zero)
I always constent to cookie popups so the number can not be 0.
It absolutely will happen if you install uBlock Origin.
People always comment that the internet is "so much nicer" after I install uBlock Origin on their browsers. It's just better, they can't explain why. They don't need to. I know why.
The fact is nobody wants this crap. Ads are nothing but noise in our signal. They're spam. They're content we did not ask for, forced upon us without consent. They do not improve the "experience", at best its impact is minimized.
Services should be denied the capacity to track and fingerprint, not just told about a preference against it.
DNT will always be an "evil bit", regardless of any law behind it.
Asking browsers to implement uBlock Origin natively tho...
Its not hard when it comes to any website of note, large companies can't easily hide what their computers are doing really, if they have code that tracks people it is gonna be found.
It took just a pair of ruling that made it clear this illegal pattern was going to actually be cracked down upon, and now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap that they were at first.
Of course I still wish they were unnecessary, but they serve as a reminder that these websites are still trying to prey upon their visitors.
Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous.
I don't need a "reminder". The last thing I want is some "reminder" day after day after day. I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.
Then don't visit webpages that do illegal things and are hostile to their users.
> I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.
This is that law.
How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? Because that is clearly not the law.
Nope. Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. It would be like saying "don't go to the bakery where they spit in your food and slap you in the face every time you order something". You are enraged by the behavior of the websites you visit and you still keep going there every day. Either you are a masochist or "voting with your wallet" or, in this instance with you attention, doesn't really work. Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit?
> How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone?
They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because some pages still behave illegally? You understand that murder still happens?
> Because that is clearly not the law.
Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. Could you point to the text of the regulation that you object to? I'll wait but I'm sure I'll be waiting for godot here.
What does that have to do with anything? I think you missed my point.
> Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit?
Because I have no choice. Every website has these damned popups. Where am I supposed to get my news from otherwise? I mean, what internet do you use...?
> They are. What gave you the idea they aren't?
Because sites are still allowed to track me? Why bother with consent around tracking? Just make it illegal to begin with.
> Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not.
That's inappropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines. Assume good faith.
But in the absence of that? I appreciate at least being asked for my consent so that I can press the "I do not consent to being tracked" button. It shouldn't exist in the first place, but since these websites are unwilling to just not spy on people, this seems like the next best thing.
Law making is a way of predicting the future and setting up incentives to achieve a goal. You need to foresee what can go wrong, talk to incumbents and anticipate the response. It's a technical matter and this has been a debacle.
It's useless to put the blame in the advertisers. Even if they're evil, that doesn't make the situation any better for the public.
Who are "they"? The law hasn't changed, it's enforcement that is changing, albeit very slowly.
There are so many institutions that can be rightfully blamed - chiefly the DPAs and the national governments, but your continued insistence on blaming the lawmakers makes no sense. The law is clear, it's just not being enforced.
Of course advertisers deserve all this blame too, but their blame is irrelevant when discussing enforcement. I don't expect them to stop any more than I expect a serial killer to turn themselves in. This is still a failure of the institutions.
The vast majority of laws are never enforced, so in practice this isn't as absurd as it sounds. It would make people consider what laws they spend time writing.
> not illegal to annoy the user on every page load
This looks like a contradiction to me.
please read the second half of the clause, kthx
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-ban...
More generally, I actually did organically notice the massive increase in "Reject all" buttons and found out about these court decisions myself some time ago. Certainly a small win for the internet, although it should not have taken 9 years(!) from the implementation of GDPR for these violations of it to be cracked down on.