> Advertisers don't raid your house.

No, but they can give that data to the FBI who do raid houses.

As the parent post noted, the USA Today home page makes requests to dozens of third-parties--including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and something called "summerhamster". I'm sure one of the dozens will take the FBI's call.

Hilariously, the USA Today homepage also hits OneTrust, who has the slogan "Privacy, Security and Data Governance" right in the <title>. What is there to govern if nearly all the major tech players have your access logs?

USA Today is shouting its readers' reading behavior from the mountain top.

OneTrust is very commonly used for the legally required cookie banners for EU readers.

There is no legal requirement to have cookies so there is no legal requirement for any banners

And you don't need consent for cookies that are obviously required for normal site functioning like login etc.

Bang on. For example

A user visits an e-commerce website and decides to purchase a product. They add it to their shopping basket before continuing browsing for more goods they wish to buy. They then finish their shopping by going through the website’s checkout process.

The website uses cookies to ensure that when the user chooses the goods they wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’ button, the site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page.

In this context, the cookie is ‘strictly necessary’ to provide the service the user requests and so the exemption would apply and no consent would be required

We all cheer for Max Schrems to teach these companies that misconstruing cookie banners as complying with EU regulations is a risky play.

summerhamster is one of a billion of those shitty "adblock detecting!!!" "dont lose money!!!" malicious JS domains.

Probably it would be easier for the FBI if they just started their own advertising/analytics company.

Too easy.

well, not physically I suppose