The dumb bit of the law is the fact that websites are allowed to put up an annoying banner that says either accept cookies or individually deselect 240 checkboxes.
The cookie law isn’t dumb, but at this point it should maybe be reformed. Basically as long as a website doesn’t do shady shit with cookies no cookie banner is required. Instead of complaining about the cookie banner law, people should complain about websites who sell their users’ data.
echodot@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Crotaro@beehaw.org 5 days ago
As @apotheotic@beehaw.org mentioned, that is actually not allowed and against the spirit of the “cookie banner law”. But since hundreds, if not thousands of sites break this law, it takes quite the time for government workers to sift through all of that (provided they even get around to it).
apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 days ago
They’re not actually allowed to do that, by my understanding. It must be equally simple to accept all cookies as it is to deny cookies.
jarfil@beehaw.org 5 days ago
The newest take on cookies, is “accept all, or pay to read”. Quite shady, if you ask me.
a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
and illegal.
denshi@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
That is actually the status quo. If a website only uses cookies that are needed to make the website function, there is no need for a banner or dialogue. These cookie banners are there deliberately to be annoying so you’ll agree to more than is necessary.