[PittleyDunkin]

Isn't this the entire point of browsewrapped TOS "agreements"? There's a reason why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation to work at all (putting aside how well or not well this actually works).

[ganzuul]

I doubt it? Stuff only works because we can't punch each other over the internet.

[PittleyDunkin]

That's a grim view of humanity, I think. The internet is arguably the most collaborative project in the history of mankind especially outside of extractive and invasive motives. Hopefully not all of us will die before seeing serious legislation protecting that kind of social investment.

[ganzuul]

It's not a very human medium, so it is not man who is implicated.

[eastbound]

> why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation

Well, it is not singled out by regulation. The GDPR doesn’t even mention cookies at all. They mention any way to track users. Fingerprinting is also banned, for example.

[dathinab]

yes, GDPR is technology agnostic

many of it's predecessor sadly are not and are still around

leading to absurdities of there being _both_ a GDPR dialog for tracking and a "cookie dialog" (which depending of the law might also apply to local storage and co) to get permission to "store" something on you computer. Like a hint to not track you :facepalm:

(And yes legally from GDPR storing a same origin cookie only accessible to the browser and you to remember the user doesn't want to be tracked is legal _iff_ you don't use it for tracking users which don't want to be tracked server side. It's one of the many examples where "what legally is good enough" and "what security wise is good enough" can diverge quite a bit.)

[bluGill]

Since you don't have a realistic alternative should those hold up?