this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
907 points (99.8% liked)

Europe

5953 readers
1369 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

The "Accept all" button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.

Lower Saxony's data protection officer Denis Lehmkemper can report a legal victory in his long-standing battle against manipulatively designed cookie banners. The Hanover Administrative Court has confirmed his legal opinion in a judgment of March 19 that has only just been made public: Accordingly, website operators must offer a clearly visible "reject all" button on the first level of the corresponding banner for cookie consent requests if there is also the frequently found "accept all" option. Accordingly, cookie banners must not be specifically designed to encourage users to click on consent and must not prevent them from rejecting the controversial browser files.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 155 points 1 day ago (5 children)

We and our 908 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device.

Absolutely, we need a Reject All button!

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

And it should include this mysterious 'legitimate interest', or whatever it is called - always on by default in 'my choices', even though no one seems to be able to explain what this means. How can I make an informed consent on something that vague?

On the other hand, not 'Reject All', but 'Reject All except functionally necessary' (which should be precisely regulated by the law), otherwise there will be no cookie to remember our 'reject all' choice, which I am sure the corpos would happily use do discourage us from clicking that.

[–] sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago

That shit makes me so mad. What the fuck is legitimate interest if not the cookies which are set anyway to make the site function It’s just purposefully misleading.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

I'm sure "functionally necessary" already means we share your data with everyone because we setup a system where the local page state is managed by third parties that we are selling your data to.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Rejecting cookies without asking every time requires a cookie and that is clearly legitimate interest. The problem with legitimate interest is that it's not well defined enough and then you have companies claiming that Adsense personalization is an absolute necessity for their website.

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

But that would be cookie for the website I am visiting, not for a dozen of 'partners'. And these are the 'legitimate interest' on-by-default switches I am talking about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 10 points 1 day ago

the "functionally necessary" cookies, which are served by the site itself (e.g. not a third party), do not require a banner at all. if you have no third party cookies, you can do entirely without it.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 3 points 5 hours ago

Okay, so I'm going to copy-paste an answer I got from someone I know who works in a legal department:

Basically, Legitimate Interest lets them track you as if you clicked Accept All, then subsequently they can decide if they think you would benefit from the tracking by their own metrics, which includes things like targeted advertisting which, of course, they do. So "Legitimite Interest" really means "Reject, But Actually Accept".

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have also seen on some websites that you have to pay them through subscription if you want to reject all cookies

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that's illegal AF. Report them?

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Will do when I encounter any more

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago

Literally saw one with 1300+ the other day, thought I was going insane 😳

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 3 points 1 day ago

Have to individually reject each and every fucking β€œpartner.”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 58 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Can we ban the "Pay to have privacy" option as well.

Fuck every site that tries to pull that shit.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's not banned. Meta isn't allowed to use that option, because it has monopoly power. IE in the view of the court, you can't avoid using Meta. For any ordinary site, there is always the option to refuse either and leave.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

The scope of this opinion is indeed limited to the implementation by large online platforms (which are defined for the purposes of this opinion)

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Whatever notions of privacy we used to have are all going to crumble as the newest AI tools come online for prying open people's profiles and predicting their behavior, their locations, their personal habits and spending, their health and family and relationship statuses, simply by analyzing a few patterns in your search terms and cookies.

From that information, these same monsters are going to be able to target you specifically with the kind of manipulative effort that previously would involve teams of people working around the clock to derive methods for influencing a single target. But it will be doing it on mass-scale, putting that same kind of effort into influencing millions and millions simultaneously.

And we all have vulnerabilities. The more invulnerable you think you are, the more likely you are to be subtly shifted by long-term, 3-dimensional tactics for changing the way you think and feel. Be it the way you think and feel about the latest flavor of PRIME energy drink, to how you think and feel about genocide.

We have to get off the fucking internet.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 48 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The irony made me exhale a burst of air from my nose before closing the page, never to return.

Basically every cookie acceptance agreement popup is just a 404 to me. No webpage has important enough information anymore for me to sign any kind of agreement. It's absurd. If you passed by a shop and wanted to go in and purchase something, but a clerk stopped you at the door and made you sign a fucking agreement that store would die in a month.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago
[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

A disgusting behavior that I've seen in Spain is for websites to direct you to their subscription page if you say you don't want to be tracked, either you pay for the content or you don't get any content. Apparently the Spanish courts have deemed this legal.

[–] rinze@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 hours ago

If you use uBlock Origin, add the following rule:

* privacy-center.org * block

This kills 99 % of the "accept or pay" modals, an you can still access the page normally.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 18 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Make it opt-in where you must purposely click somewhere. And just hide that away where they have their unsubscribe button.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 33 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

afaik the wording of the gdpr says that rejection must be as easy as acceptance

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Not just "as easy" but "at least as easy". The assumption should be that the user does not consent. And there have also been a few cases where the courts have - quite rightly - rules that "pay for privacy" offers aren't good enough.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

i thought the pay or consent stuff was DMA though?

[–] wintermute@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It is opt-in, if you don't choose any option on the banner it's the same as choosing reject all. So, the best option is uBlock Origin with the "Cookie notices" filters enabled.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 17 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Cookie banners need to piss off forever. You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

what about color scheme cookies?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 11 points 20 hours ago

You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)

FINALLY! I was wondering how long it'd take for people to act upon the fact that Permission prompts have become THE biggest digital grift. The answer: way too fucking long!

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I recently started to use "I still don't care about cookies". So far so good.

[–] Localhorst86@feddit.org 12 points 13 hours ago

The issue about that extension is this:

When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do).

It will often just accept the cookies as is.

[–] ewo@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 20 hours ago

This and Consent-o-matic

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Also, require its html tag to have an attribute "data-legal-reject" or something like that so we can have browsers auto reject all that shit - while keeping necessary ones.

Better yet, attach this at the protocol level. "X-Cookie-Policy: ImportantOnly" or something like that.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, there’s no reason why this should be anywhere except the browser level.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

A friend of a friends relative's 2nd cousin mentioned that pornography sites have been surprisingly compliant about this, already.

[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Next up: No more allowed" followed by "No banners allowed, setting cookies is only even possible after user account creation"... please?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

As always, it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the grifters running the show. Cookies are great for remembering what's in a shopping basket, language settings, etc before you sign in and if those were the only kinds of things the sites were using they wouldn't even need the Cookie banner. Remember the Cookie Banner is nothing to do with Cookies, and everything to do with commercialised mass monitoring.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί