Administrative court: Cookie banner must contain "Reject all" button
Administrative court: Cookie banner must contain "Reject all" button
www.heise.de
Administrative court: Cookie banner must contain "Reject all" button
10 comments
-
A reject all button would appear on every page because the website wouldn't remember that you rejected cookies.
-
It has never been forbidden to store first party cookies required for site functionality. This includes remembering the banner setting.
-
In particular, the GDPR only concerns itself with personal data. The only reason a news webpage needs a cookie banner, is because they do tracking.
I would also argue that even a shopping webpage doesn't need a cookie banner either, because you express your consent when you click that "Add to Cart" button.
The only reason cookie banners are so prevalent is due to fearmongering by the ad industry. They had to convince webpages that they'd need a cookie banner whether they do ads/tracking or not.
-
This is exactly correct.
We've developed a bunch of web applications for our customers, none of them do cookie-based tracking or ads, and as a result we do not need to show a banner.
For the simple reason that (without it) we get questions about it from users, there is a little blurb on our login pages that states in broad terms; "This site does not serve up tracking cookies. We only serve cookies required to make the site work, such as keeping you logged in, or storing your preferences".
The advertisement industry ran an extremely effective disinformation campaign to make people think every website needed a banner, and to nag people into hating a law that works in their interest.
-
-
-
Im fine with this
-
10 comments