The law is not bypassed, the annoying banners with no simple option to reject are illegal. The issue is that enforcement is slow, not that the law is badly written.
GDPR's Article 7 [0] is very clear:
> 3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. [emphasis mine]
Yes, that very much is an example of the law being badly written.
"Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof."
Means there must be some sort of a cookie notification (which could of course take a small space of the screen, but still).
The existence of this notification makes it easier to initially give consent. If withdrawing later is to be as easy, the notification must never disappear.
> The issue is that enforcement is slow, not that the law is badly written.
The enforcement/implementation of a law is so deeply entwined with the text that it's deceptive to separate them.
If a law is written in a way so as to make enforcement hard, or if the government doesn't have the resources to quickly and consistently apply it, then it's a bad law because it enables weaponized targeted/selective enforcement of a new law that wasn't present before.
Essentially all laws are difficult to enforce. If someone really won't follow the law, then it takes a lot of time and money to prosecute them. Society relies on most people voluntarily following most laws most of the time.
You literally say it's "deceptive to separate them". The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them.
Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.
There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases. Perhaps that is your preferred order of the world.
But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence. Suggesting otherwise is to lean into autocracy, whatever your motives.
> The whole POINT of modern governance is to separate them
This is wildly incorrect. The point is not separation - that is obviously stupid and pointless. The point is maintaining checks and balances on the power of the government, and one of the (many) mechanisms is through separation.
> Saying legislature is writing "bad laws" because the judiciary may or may not have the resources to enforce is to necessarily subjugate the legislature to the judiciary which violates the principles of separation in the first place.
Again, incorrect, because the principle is limiting power, not separation of powers test for its own sake. Not passing laws that can't be correctly enforced is not a violation of that goal or the strategy of separation of powers.
> There are countless examples of legislation that does not get litigated due to political or other pressures on the judiciary. Your argument would require that the legislature lie down in those cases.
Nowhere did I say that or does my argument imply or necessitate that. Being unable to enforce a law due to lack of resources is categorically different than political pressure. You're intentionally misinterpreting my words
> But in a modern, principled government, the entire principle is their separation and independence.
This is your own projection of what a "modern", "principled" government should look like - which, as stated before, is obviously stupid and pointless. Separation is not a virtue - it's a means to an end. You may want to consider reading the US Constitution to see this in action.
The fact that you replied with a sarcastic comment lacking any content and then went to my profile and signed my email up for a bunch of spam emails is proof that you're unable to defend your argument. Not that proof was needed.
I can't speak to the latter, but the former was not sarcastic and there's nothing to defend. Muddying the independence of arms of government is page one of the autocrat's handbook which you seem smart enough to know. No making laws all by yourself legislators, you will first check with the Ministry of Enforcement! It's an entirely valid form of governance, as Big Men of History will attest, and you're entitled to your opinion on the matter.
Thank you for mentioning point 7.3 this as it's a very important, but gets often ignored. I hope that it gets strictly enforced. _It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent._
Regarding the link you posted, they have a banner at the bottom saying:
> We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. [Ok] [No] [Privacy Policy]
My understanding was that such an implicit consent ("we will assume that you are happy with it") is not legal so I find it a bit surprising to see it used on a website dedicated to the GDPR.
GDPR's Article 7 [0] is very clear:
> 3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. [emphasis mine]
[0] https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers...