GDPR: Is It Worth It?

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by osigurdson on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:50AM (#40389843)

GDPR: All websites ask if cookies are ok. If not ok, can't use website. Everyone clicks ok. Amazing work, regulators.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by btbuilder on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:55AM (#40389926)

I always choose the “essential cookies only” option. This is normally harder than accepting all cookies, but it is getting easier over time. I rarely see a site that has essential-only.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by rrr_oh_man on Friday May 17, 2024 @06:37PM (#40394795)

> I rarely see a site that has essential-only.

You'd need no cookie banner, then. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by jonwinstanley on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:57AM (#40389963)

Not everyone clicks ok. Having a choice is better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by osigurdson on Friday May 17, 2024 @11:07AM (#40390740)

You always have the choice not to use the internet. A far better solution would be to manage this on the client side.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by Sprint9935 on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:52AM (#40389875)

Everyone doesnt click ok. You can typically use websites if you dont click ok.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by michalstanko on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:57AM (#40389955)

I wonder how many websites show a cookie banner and don't change a thing whether you click Accept or anything else.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by Macha on Friday May 17, 2024 @10:04AM (#40390046)

The last study I saw was about 15% for ways detectable client side (e.g. loading ad tracking scripts before the banner is interacted with or despite negative interaction).

Probably a bit higher when you consider server side tracking and those who make up some not-legally-valid claims of legitimate interests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by msk-lywenn on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:51AM (#40389865)

I always click no and the websites do work. What do you mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by marcosdumay on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:53AM (#40389899)

> If not ok, can't use website.

If you care to read it, you'll find out this is the opposite of what it says.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by estebank on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:54AM (#40389910)

GDPR is not the ePrivacy directive.

The later is the one that resulted in the cookie banners, the former protects the right of Europeans to have their private data remain so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by troupo on Friday May 17, 2024 @10:06AM (#40390079)

Even with ePrivacy Directive you don't need the dark pattern banners the industry puts up

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by estebank on Friday May 17, 2024 @10:08AM (#40390100)

Correct. The banners started as malicious compliance and then became the "industry norm" so everyone followed through.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by zugi on Friday May 17, 2024 @09:56AM (#40389933)

What's even more annoying is there were already browser plug-ins, and now there are built-in browser tools, for rejecting cookies or deciding which cookies to store permanently versus which to accept temporarily. GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution to a "problem" that was already solved, and got people used to a hostile UI pattern on websites.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GDPR: Is It Worth It? by troupo on Friday May 17, 2024 @10:16AM (#40390197)

> GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution

Can you point me to the exact place in GDPR that talks about browsers and cookies

> to a "problem" that was already solved

If it was already solved, why did the industry come up with the dark patterns to trick people into blindly agreeing to tracking and blaming the law for that?

[ Parent | on HN ]