lovinglyhappy

P. S.: Just to address this: Yes, I do have switched it to “Dokumente bearbeiten und Synchronisation beenden”, i.e. to “edit documents and end synchronisation”, when I see (only) see the message “Keine Dokumente gefunden. Bitte stelle den Complianz Privacy Suite Assistenten fertig, um Dokumente zu erstellen.”

Hi Aert,

No, I cannot use either the classic or the Gutenberg Editor any longer on this page. For, as I said, there is now only the note on that page, if I try using these, that no documents was found and that I should finish the Complianz Privacy Suite Assistant, in order to create the document.

However, when I use the code editor, than the text of the cookie policy – in code – becomes viewable and can be edited – in code. (I am not sure whether I have expressed it in such a way that you see what the problem is?)

I understand that synchronisation will be off when I edit the page. However, whereas editing and moving the page ended in what I have described, when I edited the cookie policy on my English blog, the text remained visible and editable in the Gutenberg editor. I do not need to turn to the code editor there. But I also have not moved the page.

I still do not think that moving the page should be allowed to have such an effect!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: spelling

You are right, that was the reason, thank you! (I would not have thought of that – maybe you could change the description of the check box to something like “Also display in archives and on the home or blog page” or “Also display in archives, including home or blog page” or something in that direction?)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: spelling

Thanks! (If you some day you should feel you have waited long enough, let me know, and I can send you the data or give you access privately – of course, I still do hope to bring it all online again some day…). You would definitely find Eckhart Tolle there. I have watched so many of his videos over the years, and was also able to take part in some of his more recent online courses. As for NDEs, I have not read so much about that subject, probably rather books about the “life after death”, in any case a while back (which does not say much as such – I recently noticed with other books I had read quite a while back and revisited, that they were really, really good… there is so much one may have already read, if one would only have lived by it, if true… ). They can certainly pave the way for people to be more open minded about other levels of existence. I have also heard, if people have them themselves, that they can leave them feeling much more preaceful. Another one to look at might be Mario Mantese. Books very different from Eckhart, but impressive.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: clarification

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your response. Here are two examples:

– Here, it works like intended, together with a great plugin that has unfortunately not been updated since years, Post Teaser. Of course, I could (should?) replace it with the third one named below, but I like how it gives the number of words and expected reading time.

– Here, I… am actually also using Post Teaser, as I see now, but there the YARPP-results are shown on the home page, and I do not have any idea why…

And with a third page, I am using Easy Custom Auto Excerpt, and it works as intended, YARPP results are not shown on the main page. (It is this page, but it will be probably still be behind a login protection if you read this. (I still need to work on the site before I can make it public again. I could give you the login, if that would help, if you could let me know where I could sent it to you privately, but not publicaly on the forum)

There are other plugins like Post Teaser and Easy Custom Auto Excerpt, e.g., but n ot limited to Advanced Excerpt, Read More Exerpt Link and Multiple Excerpt Lengths.

I know I could just use the “Read More” tag, but I find it more convenient to let it automatically be regulated by a plugin, that allows me to customise further.

P. S.: By the way, I had meant to name this thread “Working with Ecerpt / Teaser Plugins”, but misspelled… Feel free to move it, if you can.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: spelling

Thank you! That is kind of you. Some of the names I know, I will have a look at the others.

Many of my own most favourite spiritual books are normally named on my main website (you can find the link to it at the end of the first paragraph on the about-page of my blog at which you probably had a look), but most parts of it are offline. But if you would wait a bit (well… possibly well into 2021 or longer), you could have a look at the library- section on that site, then. I will probably need to remove or change many of the affiliate links there to comply with the GDPR first (or find another way to comply), and I am not sure when I will feel up to that. But you might find quite a few excellent titles there again one day some of which you might find interesting.

P. S.: After trying out much, I found out that I can still edit the policy it with the code editor, but when I am using the visual editor, the only words I can see are the title and the above-mentioned remark that no documents was found and that I should finish the Complianz Privacy Suite Assistant. Certainly that can not be intended behaviour, to disallow moving a page threatened by the consequence not to be able to use the visual editor, to put it dramatically ; ). So I wonder: Is there any way back to being able to use the visual editor, once one has switched of syncronisation and moved the page to a custom URL?

Hi Aert,

Thank you for your response. But what do I do about it? I would like to edit the text visible when I visit the page, but when I press “edit”, it vanishes, being replaced by the message I gave above. How do I get the text back to actually edit it? Is it gone, despite being still visible in the edited form?

And: If I change the URL and edit it, will then the function to change one’s preferences also not work any longer?

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.

Hi Adnan, thank you for your response. I have not seen it since I asked the question (after numerous further scans in more recent days). But I did a scan for cookies before I asked, and the cookie “loginpress_bg” was shown. Because of the name, I could only assume it was from LoginPress. Actually, I reflected upon where it might come from and removed the session expiration that was set. Afterwards, I have not seen the cookie again. Perhaps it may be linked to that? Are you sure it is not a cookie set by LoginPress? But, then, why the name?

If you google for it, you can find a variety of sites which are naming that cookie in their cookie policy .You could have a look whether they are using LoginPress. If the cookie is not set by your plugin, is it possible that it is set in the context of the expiration setting by another plugin, yet named after your plugin? That might be worth investigating and having changed?

In any case, I would be interested in what you will find out.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: grammar
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: spelling
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: clarification
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: spelling

P. P. S.: It does seem to refer to the browser setting, the hint vanished after I had changed the setting, so you do not need to investigate that any further. It may be helpful, though, to make clear in the wording that that is meant.

P. S.: One further remark, if I may, as it does belong in this thread. Above, I had sad that the plugin tells me that “Do Not Track” is activated (albeit it is not). I assumed this was referring to the plugin of that name. The German version tells me just “Du hast ?Nicht verfolgen” aktiviert. Dies verhindert die Platzierung der meisten Cookies. Bitte führe den Scan ohne aktiviertes “Nicht verfolgen” aus.”. This sounds like a setting, not so much like a plugin. I am not sure what it is referring to exactly, though? Or would that refer to a browser setting?

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.

Hi Aert,

Thank you again for your helpful response. Now I can finally set my website free ??

(As for 6.: Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps it might be advisable to slightly change the wording, then? To make everything perfectly clear, in my privacy policy, I have changed it to: “The cookie above he cookie complianz_policy_id is only stored in the your browser and will not be shared with us. The exact purpose of this cookie is to register the ID of the policy you agreed to. If the policy would be changed afterwards, the ID’s would not match and your consent be automatically revoked. For more information on the tool we are using, please read the Complianz Privacy Statement.”)

As for your question: I may not have found now the original article I was thinking about, but here are a few, albeit not in English:

A. Overview over Opinions

I. Doubtful whether not offering to select or deselect cookies is lawful:

1. “data protection authorities” according to this article written by a lawyer: https://datenschutz-generator.de/eugh-cookie-einwilligung-banner-detailinformationen-pflicht. He himself is not as strict, but recommends nevertheless to follow the opinion of the authorities if one would like to be sure. Others should weigh risks, advantages and disadvantages.

2. My interpretation of the first link given in III. 2. below

3. This publisher (it is not clear whether the article was written by a jurist) says that tracking cookies have to (enabled to) be accepted separately. (The ruling of the BGH, the highest German civil court, this article is reacting to, has not decided the matter itself, as far as I see, it only speaks of having to get consent “in the concrete case” (see at paragraph / point 50 of the decision).

II. Agreeing with that it is currently lawful:

1. https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/11648-eugh-urteil-cookies-einwilligung.html

III. Undecided / Not definite / Neutral (?) / Unclear

1. https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.datenschutz.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FAQ-zu-Cookies-und-Tracking.pdf (p. 3)

2. https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/oh/20190405_oh_tmg.pdf says on p. 9: that, normally (“as a rule”) there will be an overview that includes all those involved (“Aktuere”: actors, players”). While this appears to be desciptive, it is seen, in fact, according to the previous paragraph in that text, as a “requirement” (“Anforderung”). However, a lawyer interprets it differently than I do here: https://datenschutz-generator.de/eugh-cookie-einwilligung-banner-detailinformationen-pflicht/ Nevertheless, in the same article, he continues to mention that data protection authorities are of the opinion that cookies have to be named and confirmed separately (!), deriving that from Art. 25 II GDPR. In contrast to that, here, the European Data Protection Committee is seen as allowing the grouping, but I could not verify this as the paragraph given did not seem to me to contain the information – in any case, the author remains with his recommendation that it would be best if each cookie could be chosen separately.

3. https://easyrechtssicher.de/opt-in-cookie-banner/: Not really decided, but not being “able to imagine” that a ruling to the contrary would be made.

B. Outlook

As we do not have a court ruling yet, we cannot say for sure what will happen. It is wishful thinking to assume that “practicality” will keep a court from ruling according to the purpose of the law. “Easy use” can only be the servant to the true purpose of the norm, which has to prevail. Practicality has seldom kept a judge from overthrowing the practice of years. Therefore, caution is advised.

If we look at the requirement to collect only data necessary, if we give freedom of choice its true place, we need to consider giving the user the informed choice in each and concrete case. The most concrete way to do this would be to allow for selecting, agreeing to or denying the setting of each single cookie, at least as far as non-necessary cookies are concerned. A grouping could still occur, and a group could be made selectable too (“mark all in this group”, then “agree to all in this group”). This would enable the user looking for easyness of use to still have it. It would, however, still give him the full freedom of choice.

In any case, it may be in the interest of the website owner, though more complicated, if marketing cookies could be selected or declined individually. Let us assume someone dislikes the service X but would accept Y (because he knows the website owner does earn money through both). If his dislike for X would be sufficient, he would probably decline everyting, if no selection mechanism would exist. Otherwise, he might just select one.
However, I do doubt myself whether anyone would actually go to that length when browsing a website. As it probably would be unlawful to have everything ticked initially, he would still very probably not accept any marketing cookie, unless the buttons would remarkably differ in favour of the non-functional cookies – something, again, legally doubtful.

All in all, looking back at what both parliaments and judges have brought over the internet, I believe that, without voicing a final opinion (and remarking that at the time of writing this, I did not use any marketing cookies anyhow, so I can, as long as this is the case, continue to use it legally, but would peraps, without the option to select each cookie or not, have to reconsider if I introduced more than one marketing cookie), the best way to ensure safety for the users would be to enable the option to agree or decline single cookies (with, of course, no tick box checked but that of the technical necessary cookies). In some cases, like the Cookie of the VG Wort, it would be parliament which would have to find a way out for authors to be recompensed. But until then, it would be great to have a solution that would protect the users from any potential ruling in this matter that still may come by implementing the respective solution.

(To all who read this in the future, please note: This is the situation as observed when this comment was written. This comment is not to be seen as to reflect any definite legal opinion or to give any council, it is, rather, a mere response to a question given in private capacity added in the hope that my feature request will be heard and contains no guarantee is given for the correctness of anything said or implied.)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.

Hi Aert,

Thank you once more for your detailled response.

1. Well, I am using the free version, and it did comment in the way I described. It did comment so actually all the time, and on two different WordPress websites I have. The only difference was, that, until today, the comment was right to point out that I had it switched on. But today I had deactivitaed Do Not Track, and, still, the comment came. If you need more information as to that, feel free to let me know.

2. I can only repeat that various German lawyers and privacy experts seemed to deem the possiblity not to have that option risky, user unfriendly as it may be. But, then, many of the demands the GDPR forces webmasters to implement are not necessarily user friendly. So that should not be the criterion. Of course, nothing has been ruled as to that yet, but I believe it would be safer for the users to rather offer it until there have been rulings than not to offer it with the risk a ruling might decide just being able to accept or reject groups would not be enough. Finces can be too high… And there are still other dangers (competition law in certain legal orders). Therefore, at least for the non functional cookies, that option should be implemented in my eyes.

3. ok

4. Thank you for forwarding it. Just to explain further: This is not a question of formal or informal. The decision to use “du” is a decision for informal language. The decision to use “lese” is the decision for wrong grammar, which is also equally wrong in informal language.

5. Ok, thank you.

6. My apologies to bring up something else, but I only noticed it now: The cookie set by compliance, “complianz_policy_id”, seems to contain information which are shared? Why otherwise would, in the cookie policy, after describing the cookie, not be written that you do not share the information and instead link to your privacy policy? Here, does it not become dangerous for the webmaster, for he may need a processing agreement with you, if the data are personal, and / or stored on servers outside the EU. As you yourself mention Google in your privacy policy…. could you please clarify? Will the cookie effect any transmission to servers outside of the webmaster’s site, and onto which servers and with which purpose?
Edit: Could I solve the problem by not letting anyone register? Is the cookie only part of the backend and not set for non backend-users?

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: clarification of question
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: additional question

Hi Aert,

Thank you for your response. This time, I have even used another browser, where I had deleted all cookies and data before, and it did ot show up again.

Please allow me to use this opportunity to point out a few other things:

– This time, there was a behaviour I did not notice before. I have WP Do Not Track installed. But I had deactivated it already yesterday. Despite my switching browsers, Complianz told me that it WAS activated (which it was not), and I should deactivate it. That does not seem to be right?

– I would very much like to ask if you could not add a function to select each single cookie in the preferences, i.e. whether the visitor wants to accept it or not. From a brief look through the websites of various (German) lawyers, there seems to be a common understanding among many lawyers that, at the very least until a higher court will rule in these matters, it is quite risky not to offer that possibility. So I would very much like to encourage you consider such an option (for the free version, too, please, as this would be essential).

– I would also suggest to reflect upon whether you need to add (e.g.) “EU” in the URL of the cookie policy. While certainly it is worded for the legal orders you offer the option to select, it is still equally an information with equally a legal function for visitors from other regions nevertheless. The “EU” in the URL could be taken to imply that it would only be directed towards visitos from that region. Your introductory sentence in the cookie policy seems to enforce that. I am not really sure that is an optimal decision.

– When implementing social media buttons on a website in German, the respective paragraph in the cookie policy by Complianz contains the words “Bitte lese die Datenschutzerkl?rung”. While it is being used like that by quite a few Germans, especially depending on where they live, nevertheless, the (only) correct imperative form here would be “lies”. This is even supported by the Duden (https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/lesen_aufsammeln#grammatik), which has already become quite (perhaps “too”) lenient in recent years. So it would be great if you could use the correct imperative form “lies” instead.

– Lastly, it would be nice if you would offer the possiblity for setting a noindex-tag in the header. As the cookie policy contains the name and address of the person responsible, that person may not want to be found his data publically on the net. By allowing a noindex-tag, this may be avoided.

Thank you for your patience!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by lovinglyhappy. Reason: grammar

Hello @wpwhitesecurity,

Thank you, yes, please consider that. Your statement about the security of point will, of course, help with arguing. Nevertheless, for those more worrying about law and fines than about security (but still wishing to do something about the latter), I believe such a setting might help. You could combine such a setting with the warning you have just given (maybe colour it “red”, and other less “dangerous”, but also add a warning that it will be an different case according to the laws that might apply in each case). I believe that would also help with what you have said – your plugin is used worldwide, certainly neither only in the U.S. nor the E.U., so best to keep it flexible and remind everyone how different rules can really be.

Thank you again for taking the time and such a helpful response.