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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
