[lumost]

Extra-territorial laws are one way of achieving the same effect. A logical next-step would be blocking websites from jurisdictions where such extra-territorial laws are unenforceable.

"This website is in a territory not subject to EU regulations governing privacy, security, and content. Do you wish to proceed?"

[_Algernon_]

This would amount to a even worse cookie banner. I hope the EU has learned something from the embarrassment that is cookie banners.

[Deukhoofd]

Yes

> Simpler rules on cookies: the cookie provision, which has resulted in an overload of consent requests for internet users, will be streamlined. The new rule will be more user-friendly as browser settings will provide an easy way to accept or refuse tracking cookies and other identifiers. The proposal also clarifies that no consent is needed for non-privacy intrusive cookies that improve internet experience, such as cookies to remember shopping-cart history or to count the number of website visitors.

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eprivacy-r...

[nickpp]

Nope. They are blaming the banners on the "greedy" websites. Not on the broken law.

Kind of like the current US government blaming inflation on... also the companies. Not the money printing.

[kuschku]

My website has no banner, and is completely legal. I just use cookies for what they were meant for: As login cookie and to store preferences such as dark mode.

It’s not the EU law that’s broken. It’s intentional that if you want to sell someone’s firstborn you need actual approval and not a clause hidden in the ToS

[zeepzeep]

> the embarrassment that is cookie banners

The idea is great, but shady websites make it so you hate it, so that you hate privacy laws instead of the shady companies tracking your children.

[_Algernon_]

Its a responsibility that should never have been put on websites in the first place. The browser should handle it.

Cookie banners is akin to letting browser extensions create their own permission requests.