this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2021
289 points (99.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32448 readers
959 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NewDark@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

localStorage is a thing, don't need cookies for browser state

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Legally it’s the same thing. The ‘cookie laws’ don’t explicitly forbid cookies, any kind of tracking is prohibited. Also, just storing a cookie with the information that a banner was shown doesn’t require consent. The only thing that requires consent is tracking the user.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure it is a thing but JavaScript on that domain can access it either injected or provided by the site. This is quite risky. Cookies can be http only so that client code cant access it.

[–] Zzombiee2361@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is storing hideCookieBanner: false on local storage risky?

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would the benefit of storing that in local storage?

[–] bighi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remembering that the user asked to not see that banner again.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just set a cookie?

[–] bighi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because we were talking about how to save that information without using cookies. Setting a cookie would break the one thing that the conversation was about, wouldn't it?

If we're in a fun conversation about how to enter your home without using the door, would you be the one saying "I have an idea, I have an idea: use the door"?

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

It was clearly a reference to the so called 'cookie laws' requiring permission for tracking cookies. However, cookies that are not for tracking purposes do not require any form of consent.

[–] Phoenix3875@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least for GDPR, if you are not storing users' data, you don't have to put a banner.

[–] bighi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And even if you’re storing relevant user data, you don’t have to put a banner.

You only need a banner if you’re storing data you don’t need, for tracking or other secondary purposes.

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

But companies actively want the end users to misunderstand and blame the law for making the internet so bad with the banners.

Remember, companies only care about their pockets, not the people.

[–] catsup@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shouldn't he be happy though?

load more comments
view more: next ›