[blkhawk]

well AFAIK a simple session cookie doesn't need a banner. Also i think if you do everything local to your system you don't need one either. The point where you need one if you use any system that utilizes third parties to track the user.

So if you store and analyze everything "locally" to your server you don't need cookies and therefore no banner no matter how much you "track" since its all request made to your own server you merly use the telemetry of.

You can't share that data without consent but thats a seperate data protection thing from the cookie banners.

[blkhawk]

Oh and the GPDR is mostly confusing because it was interpreted with malicous complyance by the whole industry - at least in effect if not intention. it is simply easy for upper management to take a "better safe than sorry" approach and by now the banners have reached a degree of dark pattern development that is horrifying in their relentlessness.

[omnimus]

So much this. The whole ad industry is afraid that most websites would switch to simpler more private compliant alternatives which would break their business (of reselling snooping data). So they are on marketing campaign to paint these alternatives as non compliant and requiring banners too. Basically every fart now needs a consent banner and when you already have a banner why not have this most invasive visitor screen recorder analytics that we send to our 743 partners in real time.

[yardstick]

Yup.

What’s that? We need users consent for ad cookies? Ok let’s also make them consent to the session cookie too as a way to confuse them or get them to lazily just click the accept all cookies button rather than find the exact cookies the site needs to run without ads.