Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Pointless law
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1384 times
- Been thanked: 3771 times
Pointless law
I’m specifically referring to The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
These are the regulations that require you to give consent to the use of cookies etc when you visit a website.
The reason I think it’s pointless is that I would estimate that almost nobody actually bothers to look at what it is that they are being asked to accept. The vast majority are just impatient to find what they’re looking for and therefore click on “accept all” without the slightest understanding of what it is that they’re accepting.
As this phenomenon is generally known any consent given cannot realistically be considered informed consent, with the result that the acceptance would probably not be legally binding if it in any way prejudiced the person giving consent.
In the circumstances, there seems to be very little point in the requirement to give consent. All it results in is the creation of billions of micro annoyances which slightly reduce the quality of life for every web user.
However, I’m assuming that others feel as I do, and this may not be the case. I’d therefore be interested to know if fellow Fools feel the same way. Perhaps I’m wrong (it has been known! ) so if you actually do give consideration before clicking the button then please explain what you’re looking for and what influences you to decide whether to accept or not.
As it’s hardly likely that the law will be repealed I would personally like to have a setting whereby my consent could be assumed, thereby bypassing the annoying acceptance page, but would Fools who know more about technology than I do (i.e. virtually all of you!) envisage that this would involve any genuinely - as against hypothetically - serious risks?
These are the regulations that require you to give consent to the use of cookies etc when you visit a website.
The reason I think it’s pointless is that I would estimate that almost nobody actually bothers to look at what it is that they are being asked to accept. The vast majority are just impatient to find what they’re looking for and therefore click on “accept all” without the slightest understanding of what it is that they’re accepting.
As this phenomenon is generally known any consent given cannot realistically be considered informed consent, with the result that the acceptance would probably not be legally binding if it in any way prejudiced the person giving consent.
In the circumstances, there seems to be very little point in the requirement to give consent. All it results in is the creation of billions of micro annoyances which slightly reduce the quality of life for every web user.
However, I’m assuming that others feel as I do, and this may not be the case. I’d therefore be interested to know if fellow Fools feel the same way. Perhaps I’m wrong (it has been known! ) so if you actually do give consideration before clicking the button then please explain what you’re looking for and what influences you to decide whether to accept or not.
As it’s hardly likely that the law will be repealed I would personally like to have a setting whereby my consent could be assumed, thereby bypassing the annoying acceptance page, but would Fools who know more about technology than I do (i.e. virtually all of you!) envisage that this would involve any genuinely - as against hypothetically - serious risks?
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 12636
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
- Been thanked: 2608 times
Re: Pointless law
...I agree.
OTOH I have long wanted a situation where, in the browser, the default setting is to reject ALL cookies etc. You then select which ones you agree to yourself via the browser. (This is the inverse of the usual situation)
Looking at how things work nowadays( ) this too is now probably impractical. Though a local 'Accept all cookies' option could help out for those not bothered.
OTOH I have long wanted a situation where, in the browser, the default setting is to reject ALL cookies etc. You then select which ones you agree to yourself via the browser. (This is the inverse of the usual situation)
Looking at how things work nowadays( ) this too is now probably impractical. Though a local 'Accept all cookies' option could help out for those not bothered.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 2673 times
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2066 times
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7812
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3017 times
Re: Pointless law
Clitheroekid wrote:The reason I think it’s pointless is that I would estimate that almost nobody actually bothers to look at what it is that they are being asked to accept. The vast majority are just impatient to find what they’re looking for and therefore click on “accept all” without the slightest understanding of what it is that they’re accepting.
As this phenomenon is generally known any consent given cannot realistically be considered informed consent, with the result that the acceptance would probably not be legally binding if it in any way prejudiced the person giving consent.
And would you argue the same for online T&Cs for services or goods?
To sign up for or buy just about anything online nowadays you have to accept what typically seems to be dozens of pages (well, screens) of Terms & Conditions, and similarly I think it's widely known that almost nobody actually reads them, but just rather ticks the "I have read and accepted the T&Cs" box anyway, 'cos dozens of screens of T&Cs is just too tortuous to plough through.
So are those similarly not legally binding, IYHO?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6050
- Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
- Has thanked: 1843 times
- Been thanked: 2066 times
Re: Pointless law
mc2fool wrote:I think it's widely known that almost nobody actually reads them, but just rather ticks the "I have read and accepted the T&Cs" box anyway, 'cos dozens of screens of T&Cs is just too tortuous to plough through.
How true as declared on this site
https://tosdr.org/
and look at who is the first site listed !
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2497
- Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
- Has thanked: 677 times
- Been thanked: 997 times
Re: Pointless law
I agree with CK. I use a "I don't care about cookies" browser extension that hides them there, shame there is no equivalent for android
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 777
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:18 am
- Has thanked: 211 times
- Been thanked: 491 times
Re: Pointless law
The excellent Vivaldi web browser (based on chromium) has an "I don't care about cookies" setting built into it.
It also flexible lets you list tabs vertically down the side, the obvious place on a wide screen. Amongst many other useful things.
It also flexible lets you list tabs vertically down the side, the obvious place on a wide screen. Amongst many other useful things.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10689
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1458 times
- Been thanked: 2964 times
Re: Pointless law
It is indeed a silly law.
But it's not inherently so annoying as what we see. Many website owners are making it unnecessarily obtrusive and annoying, often as a protest (by them or their developers) against that law.
Back in 2003 it was even more pointless, as browsers offered more convenient and sensible cookie management. But on that point one might also concede that the law probably anticipated an arms race, and may even have served to avert something worse!
But it's not inherently so annoying as what we see. Many website owners are making it unnecessarily obtrusive and annoying, often as a protest (by them or their developers) against that law.
Back in 2003 it was even more pointless, as browsers offered more convenient and sensible cookie management. But on that point one might also concede that the law probably anticipated an arms race, and may even have served to avert something worse!
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
- Has thanked: 1590 times
- Been thanked: 1579 times
Re: Pointless law
I don't automatically accept all. Wherever possible I use the option to reject all but essential cookies. Seems the law has been successful in mandating this choice at least.
GS
GS
Re: Pointless law
I do same as GS immediately above. Except that I find it difficult, if not impossible, to restrict Google's use of cookies.
ten0rman
ten0rman
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
- Has thanked: 1590 times
- Been thanked: 1579 times
Re: Pointless law
ten0rman wrote:I do same as GS immediately above. Except that I find it difficult, if not impossible, to restrict Google's use of cookies.
Yes, it's a problem if you want to use their services. I only allow session cookies for Google in my browser. But I'd guess as soon as I'm logged in they know everything about me anyway...
GS
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
- Has thanked: 550 times
- Been thanked: 1582 times
Re: Pointless law
The Daily Mash’ website says. “Accept cookies: No way! Whatever!”
Pretty much sums it up for me. I find the warnings far more intrusive than the cookies.
Gryff
Pretty much sums it up for me. I find the warnings far more intrusive than the cookies.
Gryff
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: November 7th, 2016, 4:21 pm
- Has thanked: 509 times
- Been thanked: 122 times
Re: Pointless law
i 'reject a;ll' when its available
as a general rule I dont get beyond opening page where cookies are demanded before I refuse and delete page
so almost no gardening sites or cooking sites get visited
but I dont suppose either operations are bothered by missing me..especially as most (so it seems) just accept all...?????
as a general rule I dont get beyond opening page where cookies are demanded before I refuse and delete page
so almost no gardening sites or cooking sites get visited
but I dont suppose either operations are bothered by missing me..especially as most (so it seems) just accept all...?????
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10689
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1458 times
- Been thanked: 2964 times
Re: Pointless law
mutantpoodle wrote:i 'reject a;ll' when its available
as a general rule I dont get beyond opening page where cookies are demanded before I refuse and delete page
so almost no gardening sites or cooking sites get visited
but I dont suppose either operations are bothered by missing me..especially as most (so it seems) just accept all...?????
If you want to be just a bit bloody-minded about it, you can also use an adblocker to rid yourself of the cookie dialogues. As an alternative to accepting.
Though that might leave both you and them on untested legal ground if their technology takes that - a silence the developer never envisaged as possible - as consent. I don't let that bother me.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 3241 times
- Been thanked: 1017 times
Re: Pointless law
Its just another example of the legaislators nor understanding what they are legislating for.
I'm sure the world of IT is not alone in this of course.
Going back as far as the daft Windows-Internet Explorer stupidity over browser choice, this was clear. There was nothing inherently horrendous by windows only having IE as the only web browser, although various bodies throughout the world seemed to think it was. They would have had a point had windows actively prevented you from installing other web browsers - but that wasn't the case.
Its not as if there was a similar curfufle over provision of a basic word processer (wordpad), image editor (paint) etc .
didds
I'm sure the world of IT is not alone in this of course.
Going back as far as the daft Windows-Internet Explorer stupidity over browser choice, this was clear. There was nothing inherently horrendous by windows only having IE as the only web browser, although various bodies throughout the world seemed to think it was. They would have had a point had windows actively prevented you from installing other web browsers - but that wasn't the case.
Its not as if there was a similar curfufle over provision of a basic word processer (wordpad), image editor (paint) etc .
didds
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
- Has thanked: 595 times
- Been thanked: 582 times
Re: Pointless law
JohnB wrote:I agree with CK. I use a "I don't care about cookies" browser extension that hides them there, shame there is no equivalent for android
The problem with that approach is it will accept every cookie going and your machine ends up choked with them unless you clear everything regularly, and then you lose all your personalised settings.
"Reject All" is usually a bad idea, many sites will deliberately break functionality when you choose that.
Customise and then save/close without selecting anything is what you want, but nobody has written a browser plugin to do that.
There is a game for it though
https://termsandconditions.game/
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
- Has thanked: 595 times
- Been thanked: 582 times
Re: Pointless law
didds wrote:Its just another example of the legaislators nor understanding what they are legislating for.
I think they did understand it, but they underestimated how many companies would just take the mickey.
The vast majority of the cookie consent forms currently in use do not follow the law as written, but nobody is bothering to take them to court.
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 326
- Joined: November 30th, 2016, 7:19 pm
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Pointless law
I would like to discriminate but the alternatives provided to "Accept all" tend to be so meaningless that discrimination is not practicable.
Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 10 guests