LOL, if you reject cookies the site can’t save your settings (it is the cookies that do this)!
Basically the internet doesn’t work in any interactive sense without cookies, they are the things that tell the site you are logged in, logged out, what posts you’ve read etc etc. Obviously they are used for advertising etc too, but that is what pays for most content-driven sites to exist at all, and there is no incentive to make sites work perfectly if people are actively blocking their income stream.
PS If I could figure out how to do it I’d get this site to just show a picture of my middle finger to anyone running an ad-blocker!
So, visitors running an ad-blocker are just "takers", from the point of view of the web site owner? Using the service but contributing nothing (financially) by withholding their attention? I can understand that.
This raises an interesting point that maybe we see the places we visit regularly on the internet as "mine" and "just there". No thought that they need maintained or have overheads. I have this attitude to YouTube and will never pay for the ad-free version, even though I am happy to stump up for Netflix.
The Independent is often impossible to view without an ad blocker due to an infinitely expanding ad box making anything beyond the first paragraph inaccessible.The Independent is just as bad.
It means those companies pay a higher rate.I also wonder what "Legitimate Interest" actually means against a list of companies I have never heard of.
On browser settings, I dislike the fact that Safari only gives you the option to ‘delete all’. I’d prefer to retain cookies for sites I use regularly, and purge the rest fairly regularly.
No sultanas is definitely bad news in my book.
Actually, it's not GDPR, it was the EU Cookie Directive that did this*. That predates GDPR by 7 years and is different to, and separate from, data protection legislation. The government misinformed itself earlier this year, when it elided cookies and data protection when announcing a review of our UK data protection laws. I know many people are very irritated about cookies, and this just helped to make them irritated about data protection, too. Which is a huge shame because data protection, like health and safety legislation, is hardly ever the problem in and of itself.
'Legitimate interests' is a term used in data protection to provide one lawful basis for processing personal data. It is an alternative to consent, legal obligation, contract, and various other lawful bases for processing personal data that are provided for in GDPR. It's a bit misplaced in the context of cookies, but basically the site owners are claiming they can set those particular cookies without your express consent, because their interests override your interests. What they mean is that there's no detriment to you, so your interests in refusing are minimal, but their interests in whatever the cookie is for are of value, and legitimate. Again, this is conflating data protection and cookies somewhat and doesn't really help. It's pretty meaningless, because the cookie directive means they have to let you refuse them anyway...
*Not, IMHO, the EU's finest hour, it has to be said. It was well-meaning but ultimately fruitless.
Yes, this all flows out of The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, which was amended in 2011. The key section is Section 6, here. But it was pretty toothless - it gave people the right to sue for damages or to apply to the Information Commissioner for an enforcement notice. So, companies took little notice.Actually, it's not GDPR, it was the EU Cookie Directive that did this*. That predates GDPR by 7 years and is different to, and separate from, data protection legislation.
They were there, but less obvious (usually just a discreet little banner which most people ignored or clicked past). Laughingboy has a credible explanation for why the change since GDPR. The law's no different, but the potential penalties are higher.Presumably then its just coincidence that these infuriating bloody 'allow/decline' pop-ups have only become ubiquitous in the post-GDPR period, rather than in any of the seven years preceding it?
They can allow the parties who set the cookies to track you across the internet. So they can build up a profile of your interests, habits, personal preferences, etc, and use that to market stuff to you or otherwise seek to influence your behaviour or choices. They may also sell that profile data to others who can also use it to influence you without you knowing.What’s the worst thing these cookies can do?