davidevalerio
Forum Replies Created
-
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Record of Consent Extension for Complianz] recording rejections?Sure thing!
Would you like to rate the plugin?
Best 🙂
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Record of Consent Extension for Complianz] recording rejections?Hi Marcin,
Yes, both are intentional.
You only need to prove consent was given. Storing denial records would mean collecting data from users who explicitly opted out, which is a bit of a paradox.
The second case (functional-only) follows the same logic: if the user didn’t consent to statistics or marketing, there’s nothing to record from a compliance standpoint.
To my understanding, strictly necessary cookies usually don’t require prior consent under GDPR, because they are essential for the service the user requested (such as core WordPress features, language preferences or login status), but the site must still inform users about them.
About your last question: Yes, it is technically possible to store denial records as well. However, as said, it wouldn’t be GDPR-compliant.
Please let me know if have additional questions, and thanks for testing my plugin!
- This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by davidevalerio.
- This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by davidevalerio.
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Record of Consent Extension for Complianz] Connecting with Proof of ConsentYou’re right that manually updating the policy version is an extra step. The thing is that the plugin runs alongside Complianz (by storing consent records triggered by its events), but it doesn’t have access to Complianz’s internal configuration or features. It’s not an add-on, so there’s no direct bridge to pull that data from.
This is also a conscious decision that has always been important to me — I don’t want to interfere with Complianz by hooking into their plugin code to extract data.
Beyond the technical side, a consent record’s legal purpose is to prove that consent was given, not to document the exact banner configuration shown at the time, so it’s also outside the intended scope.
As clarified in the Plugin’s FAQ, the plugin doesn’t replace Complianz Pro: “This plugin is made to work alongside the free Complianz plugin by adding just the consent recording part. If you want all the extra features, you would use Complianz Pro instead.”.
Best,
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Record of Consent Extension for Complianz] Connecting with Proof of Consenthi @aahulsebos, thanks for the suggestion! I’m always down to hearing how to improve the plugin.
Now, about you question: for GDPR purposes, a record of consent doesn’t need to include the full cookie configuration snapshot. What matters is what the user consented to, when, and under which policy version, which the plugin already tracks. The policy version field is exactly there for this: bump it whenever your configuration changes, and you can always trace back which setup was active at the time.
Best,
- This reply was modified 3 months ago by davidevalerio.
Done! check version 1.4.4 🙂
On another note, I saw your review (thanks for it!) and I wanted to ask what do you mean for “early version”? The plugin does specifically one thing, so I honestly wonder what would an “advanced version” look like for you.
Cheers
You were right: the
cmplz_saved_preferencesevent isn’t emitted in current versions of Complianz! It turns out Complianz doesn’t fire any public JS events that distinguish between accepting the banner and saving preferences. The only reliable signal is when consent is granted through a content blocker click.So the update’s now inference-based:
- Consent from a content blocker click is treated as
"blocker" - Everything else (banner accept or preferences save) falls under
"banner"
I just updated the plugin to version 1.4.3. Please let me know if it works on your side.
Also, please consider leaving a review to the plugin!
I’ll look into it 🙂
can you repost it in a new thread? I’ll mark this one as solved
- This reply was modified 4 months ago by davidevalerio.
Hi @bheching
Good catch! I’ve edited the consent-tracker (cm-roc.js), so that it only callstoreConsent()when consent actually changes. You should see this in the console as “Consent unchanged – skipping duplicate storage”Update to version 1.4.2 and let me know if this solves the issue on your side