bestcases

I get your reasoning, it makes sense to me. Thank you.

Yes, my question is in regards to embedded content, not just links.

So with that, is it correct to assume that you (the Complianz-team) does currently not see any reason to integrate the functionality to “overwrite” an existing regular YT-link and replace it with the no-cookie link?

Thank you. The handling by Complianz is clear now.

If I understand you correct, your understanding (the understanding of the Complianz-Team) is, that according to the GDPR-rules it would be OK to place Youtube-Links on the site, which are without the “enhanced privacy/no-cookie-rule), because Complianz does prevent the connection to YouTube, until consent is given by the user.

If this is correct, then one would not need to worry about placing the no-cookie-links for YouTube, right?

Even if I think the GDPR is a bureaucratic monster, and a waste of human resources (as this thread should be evidence of), the GDPR has been put in place and seems to be enforced. With that in mind, I really hope we get a resourceful discussion going, ending with a clear understanding of the proper way to handle these links, therefor I will express the following:

From my current understanding I am not sure if preventing the YouTube connection until the user gives permission to open the “regular” link would be sufficient for the GDPR, because the user is not served with the privacy information/handling of his data in regards to YouTube; therefor he’s not able to make an informed decision…
With that in mind, it seems useful/more safe in regards to the GDPR, if one would still use the no-cookie link to YouTube. And in such case it would be great if Complianz would “overwrite” an existing regular link and replace it with the no-cookie link, (as the linked tool in my previous post does). Might be a pretty straight forward/simple additional feature to implement to Complianz.

What are your thoughts?

To put the question in a different way:

Will Complianz automatically transform YouTube links to the nocookie URL, like “Embed Privacy” does, as I learned here by accidentally asking a related question in their subforum?

If Complianz does so, where can I read about the handling/details about the function related to Youtube, asking for consent and nocookie?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by bestcases.

Thank you and sorry – don’t really know why this topic landed in this subforum. “Embed Privacy” sounds interesting, but in my scenario I am concerned that it might interfere with the functions of Complianz.

@admin: I will post my initial question again, in the general forum. If OK with you, combine the threads, or delete one. Thank you.

Thanks. Did sent an email to the support mail pretty soon after you reply. Please check.

Thank you. I see, with your installation approach you can (relatively easy) use a regular site, because of one single domain.

I am stuck with two domain names, one for each language. So it makes me wonder, if/how the two domains could point to the same page, and every language sees it’s specific domain… Any idea?

Thank you for your continuous effort on this matter.

I did go to the website you created, opened the developer tools, and did check for cookies.

First I have a question:
You are referring to “local storage items”, not cookies? Would local storage items fall under cookies under your perspective?

When I go to the test-page you created, all I get is “No data present for selected host” under cookies and local storage.
See picture here.

I still don’t see any cookies placed on the front end. I am starting to feel stupid. Surely, I must miss something here?

OK. I got a message from Kadence, which clearly states that Kadence theme won’t place any cookies on the front end (unless in combination with WooCommerce and a certain setting, which does not apply for me).

As stated in the previous post, I can confirm what Kadence says:
In my browser I won’t find any of the cookies Complianz finds in the Backend, which are supposed to come from Kadence. So something must be off there…

I would really like to see this sorted out. Both seem to be good tools, and I would like to use them together.

Is there any way you can get in contact with the Kadence team? I don’t know how to contribute to this issue from my end any more, but will do so if asked and if I can.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by bestcases.

This is not support for your question, this is me being curious. Hope that’s OK.

Could you tell me, how you did the check if the site was GDPR-compliant?

If you scan for cookies in Complianz, do you find more cookies than you expect or does it seem to fork fine on your setup? I find more cookies in Complianz than in the browser, and wonder why. If interested, here is the topic.

Good lick with your setup.

Thank you for getting back to me.

I guess, I should attempt to clarify the current scenario/situation:

In the test from my previous post, Kadence was activated again.
I however could not see the cookies found by scanning with Complianz in the browser, as the picture shows.

Maybe I have a wrong understanding about how Complianz finds cookies.

From one of your previous posts

As Complianz scans the cookies set in your browser, it is possible it picks up cookies that were installed previously, but are not active anymore.

I did get the idea, that Complianz will just check the cookies currently in the browser. This however does not seem the case, so I guess I misunderstood.

Question:
Where can I learn about the process how Complianz determines which cookies will be found by the “Scan”? It clearly does not (just) utilize the cookies currently set in the browser.

Clarification:
If I deactivate Kandence Theme, the cookies will not be found by the Complianz Scan, even if Kadence Blocks is activated. So is seems, the cookies are coming from Kadence Them, not Kadence Blocks. Maybe it’s useful to update the Cookie-Database, so is shows that the cookies belong to Kadence Theme, rather than just “pagebuilder”. Or are such details not desired/useful in the database?

Thank you for the help, I guess there is some light at the end of the tunnel ??

OK. Thank you.

I did clear all cookies for the domain of my (staged) site.

Then – with the deleted cookies – I had to login again to perform Complianz cookie scan.

Below is what Complianz found, vs what is in the browser.
According to the browser, Complianz should hardly find anything. What am I missing?

Note the cookie “Youtube” shows nothing, but “no data present for this host”, so I did not make another screenshot for YT-cookies.

View post on imgur.com

Currently I don’t know how to proceed to get a clean (and law abiding) cookie banner..

I did deactivate Kadence Blocks, and did switch from the Kadence theme to the native WP-theme. Then did re-scan for cookies.

All the cookies which are from Kadence, are still there. I assume, there must be something off. Maybe the cookies are not from Kadence after all? They should be gone with Kadence disabled, right?

Here is a screenshot:

View post on imgur.com

Would be great to hear back. Did also ask Kadence about the cookies. Maybe they will chip in.
—————————–
Did activate Kadence Blocks and the Kadence Theme again. Opened the site.
If Complianz is deactivated, my site in it’s current state will not set cookies at all, but has a few with Complianz activated, there are a few, but only Complianz itself. See the picture.

View post on imgur.com

So the question at this point is:
Why does Complianz find all these cookies in the back-end, when it scans, while there are none on the front-end?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by bestcases.

Thank you. That made it more clear.

I sure will try to help tracking it down.

For clarification: In case I deactivate a plugin, then the corresponding cookies will not be “active” anymore, meaning Complianz will not find them?

Am I correct with the above assumption? If so, I guess I have to deactivate plugings, until the cookie in question is gone. With that, we will know where the cookie comes from. Is this the way to go? If not: Let me know what to do to get this last cookie sorted out.

In regards to Kadence: I did like this plugin for Gutenberg, but with all the cookies, and if it’s build on an existing framework, I wonder how clean the code is. Maybe one should put Kadence aside, if a clean running website is the goal?
If you have an further information in regards to the “existing framework” before Kadence, I would like to hear. Maybe this is the wrong place here?
However: If you happen to be in contact with their developers, I would appreciate pointing them at this thread, because I firmly believe, they have to sort out this mess with all these cookies, if they want to survive and thrive in today’s market with all the cookie banners, and data protection acts. For me at least, it’s pretty much a no-go to show site-visitors 10+cookies, just because of the Kadence plugin. And in case I am wrong in regards to my view on the massive usage of cookies, I would like to hear it too. I’m pretty good at changing my point of view, as soon as good information comes along ??

Wow. Quick answer. Thank you.

Yes, I was referring to the premium (paid) versions in regards to my question.
That the free version would not come with any warranty seems logical.

Didn’t know that you guys on the forum are for the free version only. Thank you for the clarification. I did however try – prior my first post – try to ask this question via the website and the contact for. This however only seemed to work with a premium license key, which I don’t have yet, as I am evaluating the (free) plugin first.