11–20 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I hope they will all get heavy fines for doing so. Let's see how well the EU will enforce the GDPR.
I honestly don't get why so many sites are even paying attention to GDPR. If they don't have a presence in the EU, it is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I hope they will all get heavy fines for doing so. Let's see how well the EU will enforce the GDPR.
I honestly don't get why so many sites are even paying attention to GDPR. If they don't have a presence in the EU, it is irrelevant.
Only sites with a presence in the EU are paying attention. The LA Times is a counter-example of a site that hasn't bothered with GDPR because they didn't feel EU users were worthwhile keeping.
However, collecting data on the 0.5 billion people in the EU evidently seemed worthwhile for most sites.
My country is so great. How on Earth did we register 30% positive growth of third-party domains and 20% growth of third-party cookies? (Good that I don't generally visit the local Internet much anyway.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I hope they will all get heavy fines for doing so. Let's see how well the EU will enforce the GDPR.
I honestly don't get why so many sites are even paying attention to GDPR. If they don't have a presence in the EU, it is irrelevant.
The "Factsheet" this is about (7 page pdf - https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/fil... ) >All results presented here reflect site activity prior to obtaining consent; the picture may change dramatically once the user provides the affirmative opt-in GDPR requires. So, meh.
Yep. If anything, things are worse now. You HAVE to give consent to do anything useful on the website (so blocking the notice won't work), and in the consent form it's usually very hard to turn tracking off, full of dark patterns. Not legal from the perspective of GDPR, sure, but it seems that everyone is doing it. /edit: downvoted for stating basic facts, amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. If anything, things are worse now. You HAVE to give consent to do anything useful on the website (so blocking the notice won't work), and in the consent form it's usually very hard to turn tracking off, full of dark patterns. Not legal from the perspective of GDPR, sure, but it seems that everyone is doing it. /edit: downvoted for stating basic facts, amazing.
And I hope they will all get heavy fines for doing so. Let's see how well the EU will enforce the GDPR.
> "The fine is really a last resort," she told Computing. "Even to get to the fine we have to go through a lengthy investigation that might take several months, then we have to take it though the courts. So fines are not our go-to tool."
However. I think with egregious cases like selling data. I am happy that the ICO fined a company for doing that. [1].
[0]: https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3027593/ico-theres-so-m...
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/09/ico_fines_data_brok...
As a site admin, I have no problem honoring your request to not be tracked. I just can't wait until I don't have to deal with the nightmare that is OneTrust anymore.
Honestly, the upcoming ePrivacy regulation is much needed- the cookies opt-in/out needs to be handled at the browser level. The current setup is lose-lose for businesses and end users. As a site admin, I have no problem honoring your request to not be tracked. I just can't wait until I don't have to deal with the nightmare that is OneTrust anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
It never ceases to amaze me the number of companies that "value" my privacy but still somehow ignore the do not track header.
Yeesh... 80 cookies on average for news sites! Down to 60... how many different ways do they need to track one person?