Comment by weird-eye-issue
1 day ago
> it's practically required, because it lets everyone know that the absence of the banner is not a violation of the law.
Your "logic" is baffling
1 day ago
> it's practically required, because it lets everyone know that the absence of the banner is not a violation of the law.
Your "logic" is baffling
What I mean is that if they don't add it, they're going to get threatening emails from regulators saying "Hey, you don't have a cookie banner". Those regulators don't have any way of knowing how their site operates, so the small banner at least manages to inform them and keep Posthog from receiving emails.
That is what I meant by "practically". I mean "in a practical sense" as opposed to in a theoretical sense.
> they're going to get threatening emails from regulators saying "Hey, you don't have a cookie banner".
That literally does not happen. What world do you live in?
But just to entertain your scenario let's say that did happen: it still wouldn't matter because they could just reply and tell them why they don't need one...
They don't even have to reply, just make a note on your footer or something or have a page you can link to that explains it. I've done this before
And they can reply back: "Hey, you're wrong".
Doesn’t usually go over well with regulators. If they have to prove their site is fully compliant in court it would become mighty expensive to do so.
So, cookie banner it is.
6 replies →
So, this story is from people who heard things? I can guarantee you that regulators have zero time for proactively looking for MISSING cookie banners. If they had time, they'd crack down proactively on the cookie consent management systems used by thousands of websites that do not comply with the regulation, because they implement the reject option as a dark pattern. Furthermore, this weird fantasy request you just described can easily be dismissed by the website operators with a single sentence: We don't use cookies, hence no cookie banner.
Individuals and other businesses have to complain to regulators about others not complying with the GDPR.
What's your source for regulators sending emails to sites not having banners for essential cookies?
For that specific question, none; I'm extrapolating from past experience, mostly not mine but other people's (who told me stories).
For regulators in general doing dumb things? Lots and lots of examples all over the place. Talk to any small-business owners you know, get them drunk, and encourage them to rant. You'll hear some stories.
2 replies →
Those regulators will need to study their own laws better then.
There's a general principal in regulated businesses that it's best to be above suspicion and below the radar at all times. You don't want to give regulators or opponents (such as competitors or advocacy groups) any ammunition.
This is how you minimize headaches and your legal bill. And on the day that people come after you for some unforeseeable tragedy or perhaps genuine wrongdoing (covered up by unscrupulous employees or less-than-honest vendors), you'll be better positioned to deflect legal repercussions and bad press.
The unnecessary cookie banner is a no-brainer: it costs you nothing and poses but a minimal irritant to users.