That's not how any of this works. We weren't going to get fines dropping on the first day.
I really hope it doesn't take the EU over 4 full months to prove a cookie banner is in violation. That seems like a straight forward infraction if the way people have interpreted the law is accurate.
> These are very real, very concrete negative effects of GDPR Your annoyance is misplaced. Don't be annoyed at GDPR: be annoyed at all the companies who have spent the last decades building an entire web-infrastructure with zero respect for user privacy. We built massive amounts of technology infrastructure that just assumed that privacy and tracking wasn't an issue. Why do these websites need all these cookies in th…
> Don't be annoyed at GDPR: be annoyed at all the companies who have spent the last decades building an entire web-infrastructure with zero respect for user privacy. What about people who had absolutely no issue with the tracking and "privacy" concerns? I don't care if advertisers target me. If I do care, I use incognito sessions. I'm happy with all the free services I get on the internet and I don't mind giving them…
I see no issue with opt-in as default (which GDPR requires). Then people can make informed decisions and choose to be tracked, while less technical and privacy-mined people don't get tracked.
The practical effect of GDPR seems to me that I have to click away about half a dozen consent popups every day. Sometimes a cookie warning in addition to that. If I use Private Browsing (to protect my privacy) I am punished with more popups. If I open a website within a browser shell on mobile that doesn't have my cookies (some kind of webview of an app), I am punished with more popups. Am I expected to look at every…
> These are very real, very concrete negative effects of GDPR Your annoyance is misplaced. Don't be annoyed at GDPR: be annoyed at all the companies who have spent the last decades building an entire web-infrastructure with zero respect for user privacy. We built massive amounts of technology infrastructure that just assumed that privacy and tracking wasn't an issue. Why do these websites need all these cookies in th…
The fact that companies can simply continue what they have always been doing “but with pop ups” is evidence that the GDPR did not go far enough.
Also, still waiting for the first major company-wrecking GDPR fine everyone was losing their minds over... any day now. There are doubtless plenty of companies still in violation.
> Don't be annoyed at GDPR: be annoyed at all the companies who have spent the last decades building an entire web-infrastructure with zero respect for user privacy. What about people who had absolutely no issue with the tracking and "privacy" concerns? I don't care if advertisers target me. If I do care, I use incognito sessions. I'm happy with all the free services I get on the internet and I don't mind giving them…
I see no issue with opt-in as default (which GDPR requires). Then people can make informed decisions and choose to be tracked, while less technical and privacy-mined people don't get tracked.
I think the grandparent post does a good job describing the problem with it. It's a UX nightmare to the point where it doesn't even accomplish what it set out to accomplish.
No we don’t. There’s no privacy problem that needs solving.
Brendan Eich is seeking protection for his failing business from the government. He wants to use the force of law to make his browser more competitive.
I’ve got a better idea: let’s make JavaScript illegal. That’ll hurt the advertising industry too!
I keep seeing this response but I've seen no articles about the EU laying down the law and punishing these so blatantly obvious infractions. So either companies are not implementing it incorrectly or the GDPR has no teeth. The EU needs to act on these bad actors sooner than later if they want people to actually respect the spirit of the law.
That's not how any of this works. We weren't going to get fines dropping on the first day.
"The EU is going to extract huge fines from everyone and their dog!"
"GDPR is useless, they aren't even fining violations!"
I'm waiting for "They are applying the law inconsistently - we got away with obvious violations for a year and now we don't anymore. The injustice!"
GDPR is absurd and I refuse to take any steps to comply with it. How on earth can I be expected to precisely know if a visitor is in the EU? Do I use an unreliable geolocation database, a shot in the dark based on IP? Do I check the default system language and ridiculously assume it somehow indicates the country the user is currently in? And what about the pop up itself? If I display it in the wrong language (showing English to a French user for instance), then am I even in compliance? Just one wrong guess and I’m screwed. Who do I consult for answers on this? Life ruiningly expensive lawyers? One wrong answer from them and I’m screwed. It’s all bullshit. The day some prick in the EU comes after me for not implementing GDPR is the day I disable all monetization, sell my business to some entity that is probably a hundred times more evil and greedy than I am, and retire early.
> These are very real, very concrete negative effects of GDPR Your annoyance is misplaced. Don't be annoyed at GDPR: be annoyed at all the companies who have spent the last decades building an entire web-infrastructure with zero respect for user privacy. We built massive amounts of technology infrastructure that just assumed that privacy and tracking wasn't an issue. Why do these websites need all these cookies in th…
Counterpoint: be annoyed at GDPR. If a new regulation insisted that on entering a hotel room, a member of the hotel staff had to use a blacklight and you needed to explicitly approve every illuminated mark larger than a quarter, then you would be annoyed at that regulation. There are supposed to be all sorts of other GDPR protections, about rights to be forgotten, about being able to access and selectively remove per…
I have no idea how to respond to, and no idea what I'm committing to when I click them.
Actually, it's easy. You can say "NO" to everything and still use the service. If the site denies service, they're violating the GDPR.
I don't want it to end up in annoying dialog boxes and degraded UX on every website like it currently is in Europe.
That's great. I don't want my information stored, analyzed, cross-referenced and re-sold around without me knowing what's going on. Oddly enough, you're frustrated about "degraded UX", but for several years now - UX has been terrible with annoying popups asking you for your email, advertisement-ridden websites that attracts traffic via well-crafted titles while the content is something to be desired... Don't be a peo…
Your information is still “stored, analyzed, cross-referenced and re-sold” and even though the GDPR doesn’t stop that, you feel better because you “know that’s going on”.
I don’t get it. Have you ever been materially harmed by businesses storing, analyzing, or reselling information regulated by the GDPR?
Somehow, I feel like the old, unregulated internet was better. I wonder if that is just nostalgia or there is something to it. With an unregulated internet, any internet user has to take care of their own privacy and anonymity. Barriers for entry for new websites and services are very low. Data breaches and abuses of data can lead to users being concerned about giving their data to tech monopolies, which can enable c…
The internet of old was something better. Of course it was, it was full of techies, scientists and hobbyists having absurdly involved discussions on Usenet and IRC. That was before Eternal September and the rampant commercialisation, tracking and grabbing all the data possible as often as possible. The earliest years of commercialisation were pretty good too - hundreds of small sites, all trying really hard, but all…
> "The worst that adtech could yet come up with was an ugly animated gif and a little flash - which was super easy to block."
Yeah, people use to complain, loudly, about sites that allowed animated gif banner ads.