> because they do not understand the implications
This is the point. Relying on people not understanding something is not ethical and certainly not "reasonable".
Do you imply that democratic process never make mistakes?
> Relying on people not understanding something is not ethical
CNIL bureaucrats rely on people not understanding, that these GDPR regulations make internet worse (annoying "accept/deny cookies" questions, less relevant ads, less revenue for businesses to create functionality users want).
Would you say that CNIL is unethical?
Anyway, that's whataboutism.
Which is fine if you want to click the checkbox to enable personalization. But not everyone wants that personalization and tracking. For instance, I've found personalized ads to be worse than generic ads, where Google tries to sell me a product for weeks after I researched and purchased it. If you enjoy the personalized ads, there is nothing to stop you from opting in, but that shouldn't be the default behavior.
... according to GDPR.
My point is that GDPR is bad (for internet users) at the very core (intent) of GDPR legislation.
I claim that it is bad for internet users to force them to make cookies decisions for every website that wants to use cookies.
Which EU law do you think forces this? Please can you link to it?
See also: California's prop 65.
The reasons for those are obvious and somewhat understandable from the companies' POV. Nevertheless, I don't see how a prompt employing dark patterns constitutes free and informed consent.
As such, I'm glad this descision seem to go in the same direction.
https://www.allelectronics.com/
...while not apparent on the main page (I'm sure they'll fix this in time), if you click on any item, no matter which item, there will be a little "Prop 65" warning notice, with a link to this page (rendered as a dialog):
https://www.allelectronics.com/cms/ca_warning/ca-warning/1.h...
The print catalog is even funnier, if you receive it - every single spot of a component or part has the Prop 65 warning.
Someone should print up a bunch of "Prop 65" stickers, and plaster them on everything in California (for all I know, they are already doing this).
It's all kinda absurd.
==========
https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/
The request for consent must be given ...
==========
The site you linked is not the law, it's some kind of blog. But let's use this site: where does it say that all cookies require opt-in consent?
But this is what we know:
1) Almost all popular web sites, that serve EU audience - added personalization consent form.
2) This is what CNIL defines as "personalization"
---
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;
---
My estimate is that over 90% of popular web sites that use cookies -- use users' "personal data" (according to this definition).
That is why I wrote "website that wants to use cookies".
I, probably, should not focus on "cookies" and focus on "website personalization" instead.
Almost all popular websites use "personal data". GDPR forces these websites to present "consent form" to users, whether users want to answer that consent question or not.
I, as a user, do NOT want to be forced to see that "consent" question on my first visit of a website, but GDPR forces me to. That is abuse of government power.
You're conflating interests of internet companies and interests of users a lot here. No doubt, this is not in the interests of internet companies - however, I fail to see how it's actually bad for users.
If you're ennerved by the cookie banners and don't care about your privacy, you're always free to click the prominent "accept all" buttons and continue like before.
This is exactly the reason for the GDPR. Users don't understand the implications and so they shouldn't be automatically opted-in to systems that violate their human rights.
I, personally, when I browse internet, strongly prefer personalized ads (over non-personalized ads).
Most users, probably, do not care either way (because they do not understand the implications). But the business (e.g. Google) cares about ads personalization a lot, because ads personalization significantly increases tax revenue and reduces number of irrelevant ads that users see.
In this situation the reasonable default choice is to allow ads personalization, so the business will have ad revenue to function and deliver functionality users need.