I hate that we supposedly have to have that cookie banner. I wonder if something was preventing the cookie from being stored that it looks at to know it doesn’t need to be there anymore?
That bit of nonsense is allegedly required by GDPR laws. Whether your site, being (I assume) operated and hosted in the USA needs to comply is something the lawyers can argue.
FWIW, my ad-blocker blocks it and most cookie notices. The EasyList Cookie List has the filter rules for that. It’s also part of the Fanboy’s Annoyance List.
As best I can figure out from reading things like this, the fact that we hold data on EU users requires that we be compliant.
Many/most privacy notices contain a clause to the effect that if you continues using the site you’re deemed to have accepted the site’s privacy terms and conditions.
I’m curious how blocking the notice but then continuing to use the site works from a purely legal perspective. Could the site owner argue that:
- reasonable notice has been given in a generally accepted manner
- you’ve taken steps to deliberately block delivery of a notice, the contents of which any reasonable person would be expected to aware of
- therefore a court should rule by continuing to use the site you have de facto agreed to the owner using anything gleaned from your interaction with the site for whatever the owner wants to do with it?