The "Accept all" button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.

The “Accept all” button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.

Lower Saxony’s data protection officer Denis Lehmkemper can report a legal victory in his long-standing battle against manipulatively designed cookie banners. The Hanover Administrative Court has confirmed his legal opinion in a judgment of March 19 that has only just been made public: Accordingly, website operators must offer a clearly visible “reject all” button on the first level of the corresponding banner for cookie consent requests if there is also the frequently found “accept all” option. Accordingly, cookie banners must not be specifically designed to encourage users to click on consent and must not prevent them from rejecting the controversial browser files.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    7 hours ago

    You’re in favour of companies mining our data and selling personal information with impunity?

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      02·
      6 hours ago

      I’m in favor of laws targeting advertising in general, not specific implementations of advertising or data mining.

      If a few friends make websites that all have access to each other’s cookies for things like high scores this would use third party (cross site) cookies because nobody in their right mind would want to store user data on a server for a hobby project. This is the exact same tech that allows ads to track you across the web, just a more legitimate use of it.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t see why you’d need to throw out that baby with this bathwater.

        My point is the same as yours. You ought not need to “reject” cookies for the purposes of tracking you for marketing, or other defined illegitimate purposes. It should just be illegal by default.

        And if you want to opt in for some specific feature, as you suggest, you could (as long as you still legislate you can’t bundle more tracking along with it).

        Things should just do what is says on the tin.

        In my opinion.

        • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          11·
          5 hours ago

          a website that has a primary function that relies on third part cookies shouldn’t require any opt-in nonsense, most websites don’t need them, not the ones that do are frequently small hobbiest projects that shouldn’t need to be updated just because the megacorps decided to take advantage of browser features.

          • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 hours ago

            I think you’re missing my point. Megacorps taking advantage of browser features should be outlawed, and cookie banners to opt-out of tracking cookies are a weird waste of time.

            What that means for small hobbyist projects requiring the use of Cross-Site cookies is outside the scope of my opinion. I have no idea about how such things could be feasibly policed, just that I’m not convinced they couldn’t ever be.

            But if I’m deciding between the collective wellbeing of everyone’s privacy and a small hobbyist project needing to add an opt in? I’m picking the opt in, which I mean, obviously, if the person wants to use your features, an extra click isn’t too much to ask

            • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              11·
              4 hours ago

              at least in my opinion the government should never make laws that benifit the ignorant at the significant expense of those that know what they are doing.