A interesting way to show, that you got no clue why people put cookie consent banners on their websites.

Let me give you a hint: Because they are required to do so by law in the biggest free market on the planet. Now maybe you can figure out how that law is called and why it is relevant in a discussion where the topic is DNT and a German court ruling it needs to be honored.

We are not discussing whether tracking is technically possible — that would be a pretty short doscussion. And if we are not talking about the law, why did you even feel a need to come up with a way of circumventing it?

You clearly haven’t been following along and instead jumped to beating the same dead horse you admit to having beat so many times before.

To summarize: we’re talking about technical solutions to linking sessions across independent devices. What’s your “short discussion” answer to that?

My answer to that is that this is trivial from a technical standpoint. Serving each endpoint with an UUID or URL parameters to figure out who shares what with whom is not a new thing and has been used for ages.

So when the headline says »German court prohibits Linkedin from ignoring DNT signals« the interesting point isn't what is technically ancient history, but what that new legal reality might mean in practise for those of us who build, maintain and run the things that are affected by said legal reality.

Or what more did you have to say than hint at one very obvious and noticable way to do tracking?

So you just jumped into a thread that had nothing to do with you to complain about how it doesn't solve your particular problems, despite never claiming to?

I don't know you and I am sorry if my multiple initial comments felt to aggressive, they were not about you per se. You believe my comments had nothing to do with your remark, I demonstrated and explained the opposite. I am open to reason, but you did not tell us once why your remarks have nothing to do with the laws mentioned inside this comment section.

So from my perspective: No. I jumped into a particular thread that seemed to imply one could "get around" that particular legal issue with a technical fix, which is just false. You sure can do that but it will not make the legal risk go away, just because you are not using cookies.

Now of course you could again go and attack the messenger instead of telling us why a technological workaround for a legal issue has nothing to do with the legal issue inside the comment section on said legal issue. Now because all of this could just be one great misunderstanding I am going to assume you don't know that much on the legal side of the issue and my comments on "your" thread came across as aggressive which raised the heat unnecessarily and was not my intention.

My remarks were in reply to the comment I replied to, which stated:

"No cookie or localdb or browser fingerprinting is going to tell you whether someone looked at a site once on their home computer, again on their phone while commuting, and again on a work computer to show colleagues."

My intention was to provide a mechanism for solving this problem. GDPR or even Europe in general has nothing to do with it.