[miracle2k]

> On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law.

The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup, and think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.

[isodev]

"Number of visitors" does not constitute tracking. The tracking in question here is to discover who you are specifically and the absurd amount of detail about your online activities collected and shared with data brokers for aggregation and resale.

A few of these cookie prompts during the day and they'd be able to tell everything from where your kids go to school to the kind of prn you prefer to watch on weekdays and everything in between.

[rnts08]

I used to work at an online video advertisement company, you'd be horrified how much information we tracked across all the ads, especially since the ad was played with a special media player "plugin" loaded inside the other media player.

This is how ad companies can sell premium views, don't show cosmetics to men, increase car related ads to people who has watched other car related ads and so on.

There's no such thing as server-side "private browsing".

[tremon]

> This is how ad companies can sell premium views, don't show cosmetics to men, increase car related ads to people who has watched other car related ads and so on.

It's really not. They already could do all that before cyberstalking was normalized. It's called content-based profiling, and it doesn't require any GDPR consent.

[p_l]

The ad companies wanted to aggregate information across multiple channels.

The example about "show more car ads to someone who watched other car ads"? It's not about showing car ad on a site whose content is about cars (or where the site owner decided they like that kind of thing).

It's about knowing you have wandered over to car comparison site recently so they can show you car advertisements when you look up sports news, show car-related merchandise when you're browsing some shopping site, show you insurance ads, etc.

[joenot443]

> where your kids go to school

Is this something that's kept secret in European society?

If someone told me they knew where my kids went to school I wouldn't be surprised, it's sort of dependent on our address which is in the phone book.

[yard2010]

Honestly I don't mind them collecting this data, what is really infuriating is the fact they won't share it with me. I would love to know what kind of porn I prefer on weekdays. I think they shouldn't be allowed to track anything with consent or without it unless they share all the data with the subject of spying.

And aside from that, I think it should be much more expensive to say sorry than ask for permission. In my world a firm like facebook should not have any right to exist, they earned it. Fine them to oblivion just like I would get a long time behind bars if I wouldn't do my taxes right.

[ragnese]

I call BS. Give me your email password and your browser history and I'll share everything I learn about you with you. I'll also keep it and share it with whomever else I want to, but I'll definitely share it with you, too.

[catapart]

This is addressed in the article. They could track you, with your consent, in many different ways. The fact that they are choosing to force this cost upon you is what is ridiculous.

[geysersam]

> The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup, and think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.

I agree that wanting to know the number of visitors is benign and it is not abuse.

But saying companies should be allowed to track me (for whatever purpose) across the web without my consent is also pretty ridiculous.

[pera]

The reality is that most people don't want to be tracked:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/facebook-adverti...

[madmoose]

I've stopped going to Ars Technica exactly because their cookie pop-up lets me know that Condé Nast wants to share my data with at least (according to the popup) 159 partners.

They have so many "partners" that their cookie popup comes with a search bar.

56 of their "partners" want my precise geolocation data!

16 "partners" want to actively scan my device!

101 "partners" want to "match and combine data from other data sources" (I can't disable or object to this)

102 "partners" want to identify my device. I also can't object to this.

The only way I can really object is to close the tab, so that's what I do.

[stefanka]

> The only way I can really object is to close the tab, so that's what I do.

Isn't it too late by then?

[Jensson]

Legally no, they can't store his data if he doesn't click yes.

[p_l]

Considering their consent banner isn't legal under GDPR anyway, I'd be wary of expecting them to be compliant with that either.

[caskstrength]

The problem is that most people don't want to pay for any of the internet services they use either.

[account42]

Any internet services that are unable to secure funding without abusing their users are welcome to stop existing.

[dwaltrip]

Great, then maybe we can all finally go outside and smell the damn roses.

[paulryanrogers]

Does it become less ridiculous when your browsing history is sold to insurers, who use it to raise your rates.

[leereeves]

> people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous

Is counting visitors all that sites are doing with tracking info?

They're not selling it to ad brokers, insurance companies, governments? They're not matching your name, address, and phone number with your web activity (including sexual interests, "anonymous" embarrassing stories, health concerns, etc)?

[suslik]

Well, different people want different things - I'd rather spend a millisecond to click 'refuse' rather than let them track me - out of spite if nothing else. Yes, cookie banners are annoying; the dark patterns within cookie banners (you need multiple clicks to get to the 'refuse' button while the 'accept' button is right there in your face) are even more so. But honestly - screw them.

[nolok]

> The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup

The you should doubly blame the companies, because that's what do not track was for, they're the one who decided to make it not work that way and instead being ignored and not considered a valid option for the law.

> think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.

You don't need a cookie for that, and what GDPR has told us is that we're not talking of that but about dozens or hundreds on every major sites so trying to frame it that way is disingenuous.