> Most users just accept the defaults they’re given, and framing the issue as one of individual responsibility is a great way to mollify savvy users while ensuring that most peoples’ privacy remains compromised. Cookie banners are a good example of where this thinking ends up.
The problem we currently have with cookie banners is thanks to the browser vendors not caring about it.
An API could exist which a page can query, where the user has already pre-selected how they want to deal with cookies. For example reject all but the essential ones, reject none at all, reject some, according to certain criteria.
Even more, the browser could check if the page is adhering to the user's expectations, and if it doesn't, block it for a period of time, like a week or a month, and publish the fact that they ignored the user's wishes.
Possibly also give the user a signed document which claims that this page did not respect the user's privacy expectations, so that the user can use it in court.
This was already tried with the Do Not Track header. Websites simply ignore it. They don't want an easy way to get the user's preference. Because they know that most users would set it to decline tracking. Sites would rather annoy every visitor for the chance that they click 'accept'.
It is enforced, courts just work very slowly. Courts have already started interpreting the DNT header as GDPR-compliant opt-out that websites must follow.
If it wouldn't work, then I'd see no ads in my paper-based iX subscription, yet it is full of ads even though I'm paying for that paper.
But the paper has the benefit that the ads I see there don't collect information on me. This is what I want the internet to be.
Ads OK, but no tracking of me if I don't want it (which I express via cookies when in a browser).
Also, you should note how greedy these companies are that they show you the paywall after you have consented to the cookies in order to read the article. No hint on that accepting the cookies is only useful if you also have a subscription. When you can't read the article, they don't revert the setting of the cookies, but just pretend that they gave you access to the article and keep the cookies around for days or years.
It's not. Tracking leads to better targeting which leads to higher conversion ratios and overall higher "Cost Per 1000 Impressions" (CPM).
If you simply do "contextual" targeting, so targeting based on the page content, your CPM will go down and and the publisher will lose money.
> Also, you should note how greedy these companies are that they show you the paywall after you have consented to the cookies in order to read the article
Depends on the company. News media publishers use the same system but are usually barely profitable if at all.
> Also, you should note how greedy these companies are that they show you the paywall after you have consented to the cookies in order to read the article. No hint on that accepting the cookies is only useful if you also have a subscription. When you can't read the article, they don't revert the setting of the cookies, but just pretend that they gave you access to the article and keep the cookies around for days or years.
The EU Court of Law decided that offering a subscription or mandate for cookies to be enabled is not legal as an offer. So the transactional nature you propose is currently not allowed. What is allowed is a grey area which has yet to be explored.
Older folks might remember that there were a lot of people willing to make content free, just out of personal enthusiasm, and that this content was actually a lot higher quality than that pumped out by capitalist motivation.
So, actually, users and sites both had what they wanted, just not corporations.
Although I agree that news media quality is not always great (really depends from one publisher to another), I would not really qualify random people on Twitter as "news coverage".
DNT was before the GDPR. The landscape has changed considerably since then and a standardized opt out signal being enforced is not out of the question.
He's talking about cookie banners. The issue with cookie banners are the dark patterns, but the end-goal is to obtain permission from the user to set cookies.
This requirement to constantly ask the user while using these dark patterns is what makes normal people just give up and "accept".
If the page is expected to ask the browser which preferences the user has set regarding the cookies, then this problem is gone, because the page no longer is expected to ask a person via a popup.
The problem we currently have with cookie banners is thanks to the browser vendors not caring about it.
An API could exist which a page can query, where the user has already pre-selected how they want to deal with cookies. For example reject all but the essential ones, reject none at all, reject some, according to certain criteria.
Even more, the browser could check if the page is adhering to the user's expectations, and if it doesn't, block it for a period of time, like a week or a month, and publish the fact that they ignored the user's wishes.
Possibly also give the user a signed document which claims that this page did not respect the user's privacy expectations, so that the user can use it in court.
These should be solvable problems.