• Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:

    They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you’re blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you’re blocking it)?

    Weird thing. Doubt there’d be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that’s of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it’s an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what’s allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

      • browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user’s preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
      • browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
      • regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
      • regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
      • any combination or all of the above
    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      They should just treat it as declined every necessary cookie and move on