Hi,
In Spain (and probably other places in Europe) we’ve recently seen a deluge of cookie banners that offer you the option to reject tracking cookies for a fee. The regular GDPR forms are therefore slightly broken, as you get several options: accept, reject (which doesn’t work in most cases), and buy a subscription to reject. Consent-O-Matic, for example, is having a hard time. I don’t doubt it’ll get corrected in time, but I want to talk about something tangential.
Cookie consent has (at least) two layers: the browser layer (where we might delete cookies, reject third party cookies, etc) and the site UI layer (where we’re presented with an option when we load the page). This means we can reject third-party cookies at the browser layer and then accept whatever form at the site UI layer.
With the set up mentioned above, is there really any difference between accepting cookies and rejecting cookies? No tracking cookie are going to get installed in my computer anyway. This, combined with an ad blocker, makes the browsing experience exactly the same whether I accept or reject the cookie form. Is there anything I’m missing here?
When I see this, the only viable option I see is to close the site and boycott it. Any other choice would encourage more companies to do this blackmail.
While I agree, and I use TOR or Orbot for everything( which means quite a few things are blocked for me), this doesn’t answer OP’s question.
In duckduckgo search results there is a link to block this domain. I always block shitty domains that farm clicks
Where’s that? I just ran a test search but I can’t see it :-?
Hmm… I cannot see it anymore either. They appeared under each search entry as hyperlink.
Interesting question. IMHO you’re right: if you reject 3rd party cookies at browser level, so “accepting” them from the GDPR form shouldn’t really matter. Plus, many browsers nowadays forbid 3rd party websites to access cookies from other websites (in my understanding)…
I’d like someone with a more deep knowledge to contribute to the discussion.
Cookie banners are not really about cookies.
What they’re actually asking for is consent to process your data for profit in unethical ways. That usually involves cookies but could theoretically be done entirely without. They’re just a technological standard.
You might aswell say: “We use https. [consent] [settings]”
It is an excellent question, but there is a third option, which is also blocking at the DNS level. Firefox and Safari block 3rd party cookies by default too.
In your example I do not think there is a difference, and my firewall logs seem to confirm this.
Zap the banners out of existence with unlock origin
Ublock Origin->Cookie Notices->Check all 4.
Yes, I’m aware those filters exist, but I’m asking about the practical implications of the set up I mentioned in the post.
deleted by creator
I recommend you look into web fingerprinting. IP and login data are no longer the only data required to pin point you on the web.
deleted by creator
How do you know they don’t use “advanced techniques”? I think you gravely overestimate the complexity of adding them to a website.
