Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by JCWasmx86 on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:36AM
(#31896060)
> I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.
Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used.
This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once
Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by spideymans on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:48AM
(#31896237)
Yup, that would work.
I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the current regulations. However I can’t help but feel that the “loopholes” in the current regulations were intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate friends to exploit.
Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by IX-103 on Monday June 27, 2022 @03:27PM
(#31899555)
"only technically necessary cookies"
That doesn't really help preserve privacy. There are so many techniques for tracking, detectable and undetectable.
Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by JCWasmx86 on Monday June 27, 2022 @04:02PM
(#31900017)
I formulated it a bit to informal, I meant, that the website should just don't collect data from me unless it is really needed. (E.g. Tracking identifiers are not needed or collecting fingerprints from WebCanvas and so on)
Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by graftak on Monday June 27, 2022 @02:03PM
(#31898284)
The opt-out action has be to be equally easy and discoverable as the opt-in, which is never implemented this way and only just started to get enforced.
Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
by tsimionescu on Monday June 27, 2022 @01:25PM
(#31897753)
The cookie banners are still a net good: they make bad sites harder to read, turning people away from some of the worst examples.
They at least give you some measure of control, or legal standing, or at least visibility into how bad the web actually is.
And why would we assume that these companies would follow the "most natural implementation"?
The very predictable response of the industry to the EU directive was to make the cookie banners as annoying as invasive as possible, such that users would consent to tracking out of apathy. No, it's not what the EU intended to happen, but it was a consequence. Which brings me back to my original point: often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences.
In hindsight, perhaps the EU should've legislated that the UX for the tracking content cannot be unreasonably annoying. I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.