Donate to Remove ads

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

including wills and probate
Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1384 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Pointless law

#426705

Postby Clitheroekid » July 11th, 2021, 2:57 pm

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As it’s hardly likely that the law will be repealed I would personally like to have a setting whereby my consent could be assumed, thereby bypassing the annoying acceptance page, but would Fools who know more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?

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Pointless law

#426716

Postby XFool » July 11th, 2021, 3:28 pm

...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( :roll: ) this too is now probably impractical. Though a local 'Accept all cookies' option could help out for those not bothered.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4809
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 2673 times

Re: Pointless law

#426718

Postby scrumpyjack » July 11th, 2021, 3:35 pm

Yes I too just accept all, but then run ccleaner regularly to get rid of them all

pje16
Lemon Half
Posts: 6050
Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 2066 times

Re: Pointless law

#426723

Postby pje16 » July 11th, 2021, 3:41 pm

i alway clear Google cookies
spend 5mins in Gmail and your have over 10MBs worth :roll:

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Pointless law

#426731

Postby mc2fool » July 11th, 2021, 4:06 pm

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?

pje16
Lemon Half
Posts: 6050
Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 2066 times

Re: Pointless law

#426739

Postby pje16 » July 11th, 2021, 4:33 pm

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/ :lol:
and look at who is the first site listed !

JohnB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2497
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 677 times
Been thanked: 997 times

Re: Pointless law

#426762

Postby JohnB » July 11th, 2021, 5:36 pm

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

Midsmartin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 777
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:18 am
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: Pointless law

#426773

Postby Midsmartin » July 11th, 2021, 6:17 pm

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.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Pointless law

#426797

Postby UncleEbenezer » July 11th, 2021, 7:20 pm

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!

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4349
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Pointless law

#426820

Postby GoSeigen » July 11th, 2021, 8:32 pm

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

ten0rman
Lemon Slice
Posts: 525
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Pointless law

#426833

Postby ten0rman » July 11th, 2021, 9:15 pm

I do same as GS immediately above. Except that I find it difficult, if not impossible, to restrict Google's use of cookies.

ten0rman

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4349
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Pointless law

#426835

Postby GoSeigen » July 11th, 2021, 9:19 pm

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

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3603
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1582 times

Re: Pointless law

#426867

Postby gryffron » July 11th, 2021, 11:14 pm

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

mutantpoodle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1007
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 509 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Re: Pointless law

#426913

Postby mutantpoodle » July 12th, 2021, 8:22 am

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...?????

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2964 times

Re: Pointless law

#427012

Postby UncleEbenezer » July 12th, 2021, 12:41 pm

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.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 1017 times

Re: Pointless law

#427070

Postby didds » July 12th, 2021, 3:27 pm

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

Lanark
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
Has thanked: 595 times
Been thanked: 582 times

Re: Pointless law

#427130

Postby Lanark » July 12th, 2021, 6:01 pm

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/

Lanark
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
Has thanked: 595 times
Been thanked: 582 times

Re: Pointless law

#427133

Postby Lanark » July 12th, 2021, 6:05 pm

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.

sg31
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1543
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 925 times
Been thanked: 708 times

Re: Pointless law

#427302

Postby sg31 » July 13th, 2021, 10:07 am

I always 'reject all'. Some sites refuse access when I do. That's fine by me.

stockton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 326
Joined: November 30th, 2016, 7:19 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Pointless law

#427349

Postby stockton » July 13th, 2021, 12:22 pm

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