- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
The “Accept all” button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.
Lower Saxony’s data protection officer Denis Lehmkemper can report a legal victory in his long-standing battle against manipulatively designed cookie banners. The Hanover Administrative Court has confirmed his legal opinion in a judgment of March 19 that has only just been made public: Accordingly, website operators must offer a clearly visible “reject all” button on the first level of the corresponding banner for cookie consent requests if there is also the frequently found “accept all” option. Accordingly, cookie banners must not be specifically designed to encourage users to click on consent and must not prevent them from rejecting the controversial browser files.
You must log in or register to comment.
We and our
908partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device.Absolutely, we need a Reject All button!
I have also seen on some websites that you have to pay them through subscription if you want to reject all cookies
Pretty sure that’s illegal AF. Report them?
Will do when I encounter any more
Literally saw one with 1300+ the other day, thought I was going insane 😳
Have to individually reject each and every fucking “partner.”
Can we ban the “Pay to have privacy” option as well.
Fuck every site that tries to pull that shit.
Pay or OK is banned.
Heh
The kind of stupid shit societies have to invest money in. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good news, it’s just baffling that money had to be invested in order to get these bastards to do the civil thing.
‘its baffling in a capitalist society, corporations do everything they can to squeeze the most money out of their users with zero regard for the users wants or needs, and do whatever they can to skirt legal obligations that protect consumer privacy and security’
Yeah. I’m baffled.
FINALLY! I was wondering how long it’d take for people to act upon the fact that Permission prompts have become THE biggest digital grift. The answer: way too fucking long!
A disgusting behavior that I’ve seen in Spain is for websites to direct you to their subscription page if you say you don’t want to be tracked, either you pay for the content or you don’t get any content. Apparently the Spanish courts have deemed this legal.
If you use uBlock Origin, add the following rule:
* privacy-center.org * blockThis kills 99 % of the “accept or pay” modals, an you can still access the page normally.
Cookie banners need to piss off forever. You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.
what about color scheme cookies?
You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.
Make it opt-in where you must purposely click somewhere. And just hide that away where they have their unsubscribe button.
afaik the wording of the gdpr says that rejection must be as easy as acceptance
Not just “as easy” but “at least as easy”. The assumption should be that the user does not consent. And there have also been a few cases where the courts have - quite rightly - rules that “pay for privacy” offers aren’t good enough.
i thought the pay or consent stuff was DMA though?
It is opt-in, if you don’t choose any option on the banner it’s the same as choosing reject all. So, the best option is uBlock Origin with the “Cookie notices” filters enabled.
Another layer of annoying on a massively stupid piece of legislation that has made the internet immeasurably worse for everyone.
These preferences should be settable in the browser, transferred during http* connection and honoured by every single website you use.
Any changes that marketeers come up with should be ratified in the same way that changes to internet protocols are, and if the browser doesn’t support them yet, they are assumed “do not”.
How is this a problem with the legislation? Do you honestly think your privacy was respected before the law demanded that websites tell you about how they violate your privacy?
Web browsers DO have this as a universal setting, Do Not Track, but websites choose to ignore it beacuse it doesn’t benefit them to respect your right to privacy and treat you with the respect due to a functioning adult.
The legislation was a massive win for everyone except the predatory manipulators.
That’s exactly my point.
The legislation, from the start, should have upheld the do not track and similar settings in browsers. Require websites to check and honour those flags.
Instead, we get some half-arsed requirement to add cookie banners to every website under some vague threat of prosecution (which never seems to happen unless you’re a social media giant) that inconveniences every single user, and often more than once.
This here, now, is a tiny bandage on a gaping wound caused by not doing what was required in the first place.
The ePrivacy Directive from 2002 already covers this so each EU country should have their own laws regulating cookies with regards to this directive.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058
(25)
Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment.
So this should have been a thing since even before GDPR was introduced. Cookie banners or some other form of informed consent like Do Not Track should have been standard and enforced at a country level even before Facebook, Youtube and co even got off the ground.
The story above says its a violation of the German TDDDG law that seems to be based on the ePrivacy Directive so this is them finally using the regulations of cookies that was established over 2 decades ago.
The legislation does exist, it just looks different in each country and no country was bothered to really enforce the law but now it seems GDPR has enabled countries to throw around the whole weight of the EU as opposed to just one country’s weight since its unified across the EU.
I’ve only had to complain to 2 websites (One pretty big website and one small local website) about not having an explicit option to reject specific cookies as outlined in the ePrivacy directive and both websites are now compliant. So it does exist and it does work but nobody is willing to or doesn’t know they can make complaints about websites that don’t comply with cookie consent.
The EU can’t monitor every single website, its just not realistic so its up to users to be informed of their rights and be willing to complain to these websites and then to their local regulator if those websites don’t comply.
deleted by creator
As usual, this should have been the responsibility of browsers, not individual websites.
deleted by creator
Just a bunch of idiots that have no idea how shit works.
If they can reject all, but can’t stay logged in after trying to navigate the site, who’s fault is that?
but I can already here, but you can work around that
Guess what? The workaround is tracking. we’re just re-inventing cookies.
This is about the option to reject cookies, not getting rid of them.
Cookies are used for all sorts of critical things other than tracking. Right now with the current methods of accept all cookies or accept only necessary cookies is fine. All this is going to net is a bunch of uninformed people clicking reject all cookies and then it’s filing support tickets that they can’t log in.
deleted by creator
meanwhile meta stealing terrabytes of copyrighted literature to train their AI on, meanwhile “step in the right direction” video game megacorporations yoinking your product license you bought because its not profitible, meanwhile nintendo shutting down emulators without any base other than having money over passionated indie emulation devs, meanwhile google using google fonts on desktop on literally every website or apps on your phone to bypass this sht anyway.
way too little way too late, these people see these cute upcoming fines as very profitable and non harmful business expenses.
Next up: No more <Allow all button> allowed" followed by “No banners allowed, setting cookies is only even possible after user account creation”… please?
As always, it’s not the technology that’s the problem, it’s the grifters running the show. Cookies are great for remembering what’s in a shopping basket, language settings, etc before you sign in and if those were the only kinds of things the sites were using they wouldn’t even need the Cookie banner. Remember the Cookie Banner is nothing to do with Cookies, and everything to do with commercialised mass monitoring.
Remember the Cookie Banner is nothing to do with Cookies, and everything to do with commercialised mass monitoring.
That is very much true, but there’s plenty of things that can happen before the final death rattle of commercialised mass monitoring in the wake of some hypothetical future Glorious Revolution. I have my doubts I’ll live to see it so I’ll take what I can get.
As always, it’s not the technology that’s the problem, it’s the grifters running the show. Cookies are great for remembering what’s in a shopping basket, language settings, etc before you sign in and if those were the only kinds of things the sites were using they wouldn’t even need the Cookie banner.
Well, all these useful things require some form of user action. There’s no need to remember a language setting until a language is set and there is no need to remember things in a shopping basket until they are put there. I’d draw the conclusion that there is no need to set any cookies for anyone before any of these actions happen.
It’s probably a meaningless gripe though… I mean, let’s be honest here, tracking cookies are so 2010s anyway, even if they were to disappear completely, I doubt the grifters would meaningfully miss them for long, there’s much better stuff in the arsenal by now.
