Published on 12, July, 2020
Have you noticed that websites often ask for a permission to run cookies?
For example, here.
However, often they only give the option to allow the cookies, but the "No" is not available and the banner cannot be removed any other way than saying "Yes".
So, effectively, pushing people to accept the cookies.
I find this so frustrating.
Do you have the same problem?
I do not understand why the websites often only offer the Accept option.
There often is not the Reject option.
Increasingly I am seeing a 'manage settings' options or similar, which allows you to turn off the cookies that may be to do with marketing or other things that are 'not necessary' to the function of the website. It's a little time-consuming but that helps opt out.
The trouble is that many websites rely on cookies, for example this forum. When you log in, the website sends some information (the cookie) to your computer or browser to store, so that when you next look at a page the website knows what account you are logged in as and offers information and options accordingly.
However, cookies are one way for a website operator to compile other information on you: what pages on other sites you have looked at for example, so as to determine what stupid advert to show you. For some websites like Facebook, the cookie can be a key to a lot of personal data they hold on you. The EU Cookie Directive (law) was an attempt to deal with this, but in many ways wasn't well written, and that's why websites tried to show they were trying to comply, even if they weren't (because you couldn't refuse the cookies as they were already programmed in the software). The 'manage settings' option (like you might see on for example the Financial Times) probably does comply with the law, because the cookies that remain could be argued to be 'strictly necessary'.
(In theory, cookies aren't necessary, but they are used for most popular websites nowadays. In my techie opinion, they are overdesigned. It should be easy to dynamically store session details in a query string argument instead.)
Hi Cassandro
As I think you acknowledge, even if cookies are not strictly necessary, the ability to remember things about you between pages is needed. One reason is your example of remembering the fact that you are logged in, and who you are. Another is that you have a shopping basket, and what is in it. I mentioned these before. Most systems don't store the information directly, whether in a cookie or a query string. Rather, they store the important information in site databases, and use the cookie (or query string) to store a session ID or similar that allows the information to be recalled on the next page that you visit. Because query strings in URLs are so visible, I'm not sure that they are preferable to cookies as a method for storing sessions in many cases.
But I think we come back to the central concern; I'm suggesting that this is not so much that the site needs to recognise you to give you a sensible user experience, as what is then done with that ability, whether by cookies or not. And that's where options come in. As you rightly say, the options that can be offered tend to be constrained by the software. Making substantial changes there may mean a new platform, which of course is a big job that takes time and involves lots of other considerations.
Sure. I think a session cookie might be seen as 'strictly necessary' in a shop once someone selects items . By the way, I was only using this site as an example and common reference point.
I may be wrong, but thought California was reacting to the 'cognitive dissonance' of being presented with a choice that turns out not to be a choice. Understanding why options and banners are so fudged only helps a bit. It's a bit like someone breaking the rules, then saying what the rules are but that they weren't broken.