Ask HN: Are GDPR cookie popups useful or just annoying? - jaequery
======
newswasboring
I feel like they are just annoying. Some of them have made the UI so weird
that it's impossible to know if I have turned them off or not. Also there are
some cookies which are called "Functional" and then they give 7000 word essays
on what they are. If I had enough time I could customize this but I don't have
the time to review it for all the websites.

It would be so nice if there was a single plugin which everyone used and I can
plan in central ui.

~~~
Someone
_”Some of them have made the UI so weird that it 's impossible to know if I
have turned them off or not. Also there are some cookies which are called
"Functional" and then they give 7000 word essays on what they are.“_

Neither of those are legal. [https://gdpr-
info.eu/recitals/no-32/](https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/):

 _”If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by
electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily
disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.”_

------
dredmorbius
My current policy for "Cookie Consent" dialogues:

1\. Fire up uMatrix and globally block cookies for domain.

2\. Fire up uBlock Origin to block element on page.

3\. Self-Destructing Cookies for edge case motherlovers.

Remember, boys and girls and all that lieth betwixt and beyond: FIRST pillage
THEN burn!

[https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/102292441272732943](https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/102292441272732943)

------
vast
Annoying and useless. These kind of popups have become so widespread that a
regular internet user pretty much agrees to anything as soon as the pop up.
Private mode users are being trolled for opting for privacy with this
regulation.

------
Nextgrid
They're supposed to be useful, ie the site should not be stalking you until
you say yes, the consent prompt should not be misleading (no dark patterns)
and service shouldn't be denied until you say yes (I'd argue taking over the
entire page and preventing you from browsing until you make a choice would be
against the regulation).

Note that this is not just about cookies but about any kind of stalking;
browser fingerprinting, local storage, etc. It's more of a legal thing where
you gave them permission to track you as opposed to a technical restriction,
so a browser-based solution isn't really an equivalent (you can block their
cookies but they'll still fingerprint your browser).

The problem is, a lot of them are badly implemented and load the trackers
regardless, a lot are badly configured and consider Google/Shitbook as
"necessary" cookies you can't opt-out of, and most of them are a pain to opt-
out (with Yahoo/Oath - the cancer of the internet - in prime position - their
GDPR flow is outright offensive).

Sadly until there's actual enforcement of the regulations things will stay
that way.

------
agent008t
Annoying. If there is to be some legal requirement, it should be to respect
some protocol that would allow you to set those cookie settings once in your
browser settings.

As is, it is a complete disaster that accomplishes nothing positive.

------
shabirgilkar
Annoying as hell

