Self doubt stems from here.
In order for this to save... It needs to use cookies, so by not saving cookies you're guaranteed to see it again.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
712 points (98.6% liked)
Memes
45558 readers
904 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You got the joke
it makes sense but the comic is slightly confusing because I think the character should be smiling in the last frame, as if thinking, hey they didn't lie, it really doesn't use cookies
make site notification that they don't use cookie actually use cookie but code pages to always display notification be celebrated by users sell tracking data win from both ends
this is why I'm suspicious of everyone, all the time
I think it's a "I don't know what else I was expecting" kind of frown.
OP didn't
Nah, there are also local and session storage, you don't need cookies to save something in a user's browser.
Clicking ok should transfer you to a different url without that message
You can use server side session tracking to maintain cookie choices short term. Some sites do.
And how does the server know which session was yours?
Besides using session cookies, they can track user agent and IP address. The two in combination will be unique enough. There are further metrics to make a unique identifier, but I think this is sufficient explanation.
Edit: Seems like people who don't know how to program besides super default methods are downvoting me.
You don't need cookies to hold session ID. If you programmed in the earlier days, you'd actually even know cookie session wasn't even the most common method before. For example, session ID can be passed around in the URL as another query parameter. You can even literally turn off cookie option in sessions in languages like PHP (ex: https://www.php.net/manual/en/session.configuration.php#ini.session.use-cookies). These kind of practice is still relatively quite common as it allows greater flexibility and not have your session ID bound to a domain.
Furthermore, you don't have to be restricted by the confines of whatever existing tools you already have. Like in the example I gave at the beginning, you can create your own unique identifiers. You don't have to use preexisting concept of session at all. If you can create any unique key-value pair, you can track and keep data without the use of sessions. Programmers are hired to create things that never existed before, be more creative.
Dude, I had this exact conversation with our compliance team. They told me I couldn't write literally anything client-side unless the user agreed. They also insisted that I always show the cookie banner if there wasn't a cookie. Dumbest shit ever. Used the litany of user bug reports on day 1 to tell compliance to go fuck themselves.
The GDPR literally does not apply for non-personal data. I don't get why companies are so ridiculous with their cookie banners. Nevermind that they have no qualms violating the GDPR in plenty other places.
Especially the ones that are so fucking obnoxious that you have to go through it to even view the site. I don't bother most of the time. The banner should be unobtrusive AND there should be a button that rejects all. I shouldn't have to go and click edit preferences, uncheck a bunch of check boxes, the click confirm. There are some sites that are doing it correctly, but they are few and far between.
The worst is when the banner is unobtrusive, almost unnoticeable, but nothing on the site is clickable until you interact with it
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the feedback from compliance teams. It’s possible TOU are written such that you really can’t store data on the client without agreement. It’s also possible that other regulations besides GDPR apply that you may not be aware of, for example those specific to banking or health.
We're a global company making enterprise software. We have all the certifications including really nasty ones like FedRAMP and HIPAA combined. GDPR is a walk in the park comparatively. I'm well aware of the details and deal with compliance on a nearly daily basis. The only justification was "just to be safe", which is why they quickly acquiesced to storing the string "false" after pushback.
I set my browser to not save any cookies so it doesn't really matter what i click
And an extension to accept the cookies automatically.
Huh I wonder if you could make a website so simple it could be saved as a cookie
If the browser follows RFC 2019, 2965 and 6265, it should only be able to accept 300 cookies which are a maximum of 4096 bytes each. So yes. You can store enough data in cookies for an optimized page or two, with or without images. Maybe you could store an 8bit track as epic background music as well as a few dozen links for your Web Ring.
How do you render it? Can javascriot access the cookie? Then you write it to the DOM? You still have to obtain the cookie initially, then have all clicks act like an SPA and not make server calls.
Interesting idea.
If they are starting a new session but they already have the cookie, how do you prevent the initial server contact when they open the browser/tab ?
<div>hello world</div>
Cstimer.org is I think
It’s funny because cookies are the only way the server will remember you.
This makes me wonder. How do cookies differ from LocalStorage (the latter of which is used to store saves of browser based incremental games)?
Microsoft is the biggest offender of this. Use edge browser at work because have to and this don't show again for password saving never does a damn thing. Why admins in a workplace would ever even allow option of password saving is beyond me as it seems like a risky move.
Wooosh
[Catch 22 intensifies]
no