You don't have to have a cookie popup if you don't do stupid stuff. Don't use anything other than strictly necessary cookies and you are good to go.

Disclaimer: I anal and this is not legal advice.

▲ rpdillon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Having worked at multiple companies and talked to multiple legal teams about this, they tend to be very conservative. So the guidance I've gotten is that if we store any information at all on the person's computer, even to know whether they've visited the site before, we still need a cookie banner.

Basically, the law created enough fear among the lawyers that software developers are being advised to include the cookie banner in cases where it isn't strictly needed.

▲

norman784 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it should not be obnoxious, look at steam how is a small banner with two simple actions, vs all other cookie banners.

	▲	rpdillon 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Agreed! Many sites don't actually comply with the GDPR because they don't provide simple tools to control the cookies and instead force you through a flow. Part of my gripe with the law is the way those violations are not being systematically cited.
	▲	buzzerbetrayed 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You literally just described something obnoxious

▲

dheera 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I see a cookie banner I often bounce.

You'd have much better retention rates if you don't cover up the content the viewer is trying to view.

How would you like it if I shoved a banner in your face the moment you walked into a store and forced you to punch a hole in it in order to view items on the shelves?

	▲	Izkata 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There is a push for something like that: https://www.adweek.com/commerce/cooler-screens-rolls-out-to-...

▲

rendx 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So? You're not arguing that we should get rid of 'reasonable' laws out of misinterpretations of them, are you?

	▲	rpdillon 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Laws should be evaluated on the effect they actually have on society, rather than the effect that we wish they had on society. I am very critical of laws that fail this test, and I think they should be updated to improve their performance. We want the right outcome, not the right rules.
	▲	r33b33 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If the law is stupid, don't follow it. Simply as
	▲	bigstrat2003 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm willing to argue that, sure (though it's purely a hypothetical point as I'm not a citizen of the EU and thus I don't and shouldn't have a voice in the laws there). I don't judge a law by a deontological measure of worth, but rather by whether it seems to be making things better or worse. The GDPR has overwhelmingly made my experience browsing the web worse, not better. Whether it should have resulted in that is beside the point: it has resulted in that, so that is what I judge it by. Therefore, I think it makes sense to get rid of the law as it seems that it is making things worse for people, not better.

▲

stephenr 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> even to know whether they've visited the site before

So uh, don't do that.

You don't need to notify if you use cookies for required functionality like login sessions or remembering a functional setting.

If you're tracking whether they're returning or not your activity is exactly the kind of behaviour the rule is covering because, in legal terms, it's skeezy as fuck.

▲

rpdillon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a site where they log in and we store a cookie.

▲

rendx 12 hours ago | parent [-]

"Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user."

https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

▲

rpdillon 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, and then the legal teams tell me they don't care, and we should put up the cookie banner anyway. I feel like you didn't read my original comment.

	▲	sensanaty 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That just means your legal team is lazy or incompetent. I work for a massive company that handles extremely sensitive PII and we don't have a cookie banner, because we don't need to have a cookie banner. GitHub doesn't have one, Gitlab doesn't have one.
	▲	kuschku 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've built software used by EU governments, and we don't use a cookie banner for our login cookies either. If your legal team genuinely suggests that, it's likely your company uses the login cookies for some additional purposes.

▲

shadowgovt 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You don't need to notify if you use cookies for required functionality like login sessions or remembering a functional setting

Nobody wants to be the EU test case on precisely how "required functionality" is defined. Regardless of what the plaintext of the law says, it should be self-evident that companies will be more conservative than that, especially when the cost is as low as adding one cooke banner and tracking one preference.

▲ tikkabhuna 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep. GitHub wrote a blog post on removing their cookie banner years ago.

https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for...

▲ kbelder 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really.

Go to that link, these are the cookies it writes (at least for me):

    * _ga
    * _gcl_au
    * octo
    * ai_session
    * cfz_adobe
    * cfz_google-analytics_v4
    * GHCC
    * kndctr_
    *_AdobeOrg_identity
    * MicrosoftApplicationsTelemtryDeviceId
    * OptanonConsent
    * zaraz-consent

Some are from github.blog, some are from the cloudflare.com hosting. Not sure how the laws apply to that. But obviously there's several analytics cookies.

	▲	veeti 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sounds like the marketing team finally won.

▲ Devorlon 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I get a cookie banner accessing that page.

	▲	eviks 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You need to wait for a meta-blog about removing banners from the blog

▲ nozzlegear 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't several of the EU's own government information websites use cookie popups?

	▲	reddalo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes; but usually it's because they embed videos from YouTube or other external sources that force cookies to be set.

▲ vasco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an internet comment, adding the not a lawyer disclaimer just shows you have no clue about anything, because you don't even know you cannot be sued for giving legal advice on the internet.

Look this is legal advice.

▲ dathinab 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

if you don't track users you don't need GDPR consent dialogs

I think in the past you still needed some info box in the corner with a link to the data policy. But I think that isn't needed anymore (to be clear not a consent dialog, a informational only thing). Also you can without additional consent store a same site/domain cookie remembering you dismissing or clicking on it and not showing it again (btw. same for opting out of being tracked).

But there are some old pre-GDPR laws in some countries (not EU wide AFIK) which do require actual cookie banners (in difference to GDPR consent dialogs or informational things). EU want them removed, but politic moves slow AF so not sure what the sate of this is.

So yes without checking if all the older misguided laws have been dismissed, you probably should have a small banner at the bottom telling people "we don't track you but for ... reasons .. [link] [ok]" even if you don't track people :(. But also if they haven't gotten dismissed they should be dismissed very soon.

Still such a banner is non obnoxious, little annoying (on PC, Tablet, a bit more annoying on Phone). And isn't that harass people to allow you to spy on them nonsense we have everywhere.