[lcnielsen]

I don't think the cookie law is that impractical? It's easy to comply with by just not storing non-essential user information. It would have been completely nondisruptive if platforms agreed to respect users' defaults via browser settings, and then converged on a common config interface.

It was made impractical by ad platforms and others who decided to use dark patterns, FUD and malicious compliance to deceive users into agreeing to be tracked.

[jonathanlydall]

I recently received an email[0] from a UK entity with an enormous wall of text talking about processing of personal information, my rights and how there is a “Contact Card” of my details on their website.

But with a little bit of reading, one could ultimately summarise the enormous wall of text simply as: “We’ve added your email address to a marketing list, click here to opt out.”

The huge wall of text email was designed to confuse and obfuscate as much as possible with them still being able to claim they weren’t breaking protection of personal information laws.

[0]: https://imgur.com/a/aN4wiVp

[tester756]

>The huge wall of text email was designed to confuse and obfuscate as much as possible with

It is pretty clear

[mgraczyk]

Even EU government websites have horrible intrusive cookie banners. You can't blame ad companies, there are no ads on most sites

[lcnielsen]

Because they track usage stats for site development purposes, and there was no convergence on an agreed upon standard interface for browsers since nobody would respect it. Their banners are at least simple yes/no ones without dark patterns.

But yes, perhaps they should have worked with e.g. Mozilla to develop some kind of standard browser interface for this.

[cultureswitch]

You don't need cookie banners if you don't use invasive telemetry.

A website that sticks to being a website does not need cookie banners.

[deanc]

It is impractical for me as a user. I have to click on a notice on every website on the internet before interacting with it - often which are very obtuse and don’t have a “reject all” button but a “manage my choices” button which takes to an even more convoluted menu.

Instead of exactly as you say: a global browser option.

As someone who has had to implement this crap repeatedly - I can’t even begin to imagine the amount of global time that has been wasted implementing this by everyone, fixing mistakes related to it and more importantly by users having to interact with it.

[lcnielsen]

Yeah, but the only reason for this time wasteage is because website operators refuse to accept what would become the fallback default of "minimal", for which they would not need to seek explicit consent. It's a kind of arbitrage, like those scammy website that send you into redirect loops with enticing headlines.

The law is written to encourage such defaults if anything, it just wasn't profitable enough I guess.

[tcfhgj]

Just don't process any personal data by default when not I inherently required -> no banner required.

[1718627440]

I don't have to, because there are add-ons to reject everything.