jebronie2

independent of established corporations and institutions

IP addresses are PII according to german law, that debate has been settled long ago by final court-rulings afaik.

"Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking."

Yes, because this makes tracking possible you have to gather consent first, regardless if tracking actually happens. Very bad solution, they could just define how data can be legally used, instead of also overreaching by defining how data can be legally transmitted.

That's the problem with the regulation: It defines how data can be legally transmitted instead of defining only how data can be legally used, resulting in nasty side-effects like making embedding third-party content illegal even if its not used for tracking.

Advertising funds large parts of the open internet. Killing ad means killing independent content creators for example. Over-regulation and censorship like "chat-control", that only benefits big players like Amazon, Meta etc. is what kills the internet.

this is already illegal, which goes to show how useless even more legislation is

No, you need to always ask for consent for cookies if they come from a third party, regardless if they are only required to enable functionality. You also need to ask for consent each time data leaves the website (for example when loading an image from a third party host). You can't even load a font file from a third party server because the users IP reaches that server without consent. Cookie banners don't just handle third party tracking cookies, the are needed to record consent for a huge variety of cases. "Banning tracking cookies" does not remove the need for cookie banners.

This initiative is ignorant and idiotic. The authors don't even understand the purpose of cookie banners.

1. Making tracking impossible/illegal would NOT kill cookie banners, since you need them to record consent for other purposes as well, such as embedding a video from a third party like YouTube.

2. The GDPR explicitly prohibits site-owners from making cookie banners misleading. The law is already there, it is just not very well enforced.

3. "This results in up to 90% of people saying “YES” – even though only around 3% actually want to be tracked online" This claim is grabbed out of thin air and can be dismissed as such.

4. "The solution: automatically communicate your privacy preference" This is nonsense because it does not actually solve anything, because you need to record consent for a variety of purposes, not just analytics/tracking.

5. Killing tracking would kill the value of ads (since they are not targeted anymore), resulting in a reduced ability for small businesses to advertise and a hugely increased amount of ad spam everywhere. Few targeted ads > Many untargeted ads

Unless you want an internet where advertising is no longer possible, this solves nothing apart from stroking a few activists ego.

I didn't know chemically deep-frying your brain could be a bad thing

Yes. Problem?

I made no claim that it is okay or not okay. Don't suggest otherwise. My argument is that it is either okay or not, regardless of the tools used.

Depends what an "image of you" is then. If I draw a stick figure and label it "tokai", is that an image of you?

I am not trying to pull a gotcha and I made no claim that it is okay or not okay. Don't suggest otherwise. I also wasn't talking about coworkers or any other particular group.

My argument is that it is either okay or not, regardless of the tools used.