The website has to be able to inform you about what exactly you are opting in to (like saving your shopping cart, and/or who they will be sharing the respective information with). This can’t be covered by a predefined set of options.

Browser-level permissions are about what the browser is sharing with the website, which is a different thing. For one, the browser sharing information with the website isn’t a blanket permission legally for the website to do anything with that information it likes.

I’m sorry but no.

Don’t track me means don’t track me, period.

Asking if you could track me etc. regardless is against the spirit of it and simply user hostile.

So you want to make it illegal for websites to inform you about the services they offer that work with tracking cookies?

Users often want some level of tracking, like not having to log in to services they use across sites each time.

No, the essential cookies were never subject to such limitations. Even today you don’t need a banner for them.

Digital stalking under the disguise of essential functions or calling it just tracking doesn’t do any good.

Some websites even purposely break their functionality when 3rd party cookies are disabled.

So, no, do-not-track is an order, do not stalk me, period.

I as a user, don't want ANY kind of tracking. That is why i check the No Tracking options of the browser.

> log in to services

That's functional, and doesn't need additional consent. The consent for that is given by pressing the login button.

What about a grocery shop.

You can login and buy things. But how do you choose whether the shop can kleep track of what you have bought to suggest rebuying or for you to keep a shoopping list. Requestion those is more than login.

The shopping list to display the shopping list is fine, Using the shopping list for analytics is not.

> track of what you have bought to suggest rebuying

You know what you sold, no need to track user behaviour.