Tired of misleading cookie banners? The EU Commission has finally proposed a solution: set your privacy preferences in the browser once, and never see another banner. Unfortunately, the tracking industry is pushing back – and so far, they’ve been successful. We need YOUR help to #KillTheCookieBanner!

  • yxc999@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Well I mean I support the message, but please pay an artist instead of using these ugly AI generated images.

      • yxc999@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        First image: why is she typing on the edges of the keyboard, why is the keyboard just one rectangle, why is the trackpad split in two

        Second image: the server is the most unsymmetrical thing I have ever seen and her hands don’t make sense

        Third image: the guy is just holding the sign with his wrist, not with his hand and the sign itself is so straight it looks photoshopped in. Well or just placed in by an AI. Also, the backglow of the sign appears behind the people, not behind the sign

        Fourth image: the guy had five fingers on the megaphone, the woman only has four. The woman has five fingers on the paper, the guy has a crab hand

        This is some mayor fucking AI slop.

        • taco_shale032@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          45 minutes ago

          I could be wrong but I don’t believe the art is generated and I’d say I’m pretty good at spotting that type of content.

  • 0xDREADBEEF@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    19 hours ago

    The EU back when they were deciding GDPR decided not to use the browser’s “do not track me”. The W3C even tried to help them and during the making of GDPR a commission even recommended using DNT signals.

    Capitalism and advertisers won of course and they decided not to follow DNT signals from the browser. Why will they change their mind this time?

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I am in favour. Until then you can use consent-o-mattic to actively deny cookies instead of just hiding the element.

    • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Genuinely curious, why can’t browsers add some (non meaningful to users) jitter to values used in fingerprints such that fingerprints become random for a single user?

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          And technically since very few people do such things, they are usually fairly obviously not the real details and the faked details end up being unique enough to just dump you into the “hates advertising” ad bucket which just means they try (and often succeed) at marketing to you through other means.

    • Skasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I understand the argument, but afaik the laws that made poeple create cookie banners do not really care whether it’s a cookie or some other identification. Consent has to be granted for any sort of tracking.

      However, as far as I understand, at least in some parts of the world, this is only true for 3rd party tracking solutions. So long as people can’t be identified and everything stays with your own host, consent would legally be unnecessary anyway.

      • blackbeans@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        More accurately, there has never been a EU law that forced people to create cookie banners.

        The EU law required websites to have the users’ consent to use personal data and tracking. The law never even mentioned the word “banner” but this is what the industry chose as a solution.

        Furthermore consent is not needed for functional cookies. So all websites that enforce cookie banners upon users do really use tracking/data sharing or their partners (such as Google Analytics) do.

      • _MadBits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I am not against cookie banners, I own a few web apps and each of them have proper configurable cookie settings (including the banner).

        All I am saying is that most companies (especially one’s that do not reside in EU) do not care and will track you across websites by fingerprinting your hardware when visiting their website. Some do not even use cookies at all.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          I own a few web apps and each of them have proper configurable cookie settings (including the banner).

          Configurable cookie settings are not “proper.” Unconfigurable eschewing of not-strictly-functional cookies is “proper.”

          Don’t delude yourself into thinking your malicious compliance is “proper!”

          • _MadBits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 minutes ago

            My web apps lack any telemetry, the only cookies that get set are for sessions, users settings and various redux like storage on client side which can be opted out. It’s more than proper. :)

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Laws don’t care about technical ‘gotchas’. If the law says tracking is illegal, it’s illegal whether it relies on cookies, fingerprinting, magic pixie dust, or literally any other applied phlebotinum you could possibly think of. It simply does not matter what the means are if the intent is to track.

      • _MadBits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        That’s not how the industry works.

        Also, here, fixed your statement for you: Privacy laws generally don’t let you evade a restriction simply by changing the technical mechanism used to achieve the same tracking or identification. Whether something is a cookie, fingerprint, local-storage identifier, or another technique is often less important than what the technique does and what legal rule applies to that activity. However, the mechanism can still matter because different laws and provisions regulate different technical activities, and lawful tracking is not necessarily prohibited merely because its purpose is to track.

      • _MadBits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        First of all, you’re the one to choose what you’re fingerprinting for, and if you include the battery or such changing factors maybe you should rethink your career as an engineer.

      • boonhet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Which hash exactly? They don’t have to include your battery percentage if they don’t want it.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 hours ago

      dnt failed because it relied on you sending more information to sites you visited.