111–120 of 509 posts
Its too bad nobody invented a browser header to be sent with HTTP requests for Allow-Cookies: SURE_YES_WHATEVER_OMG_STOP_ASKING_PLZ
Maybe we could call it something like "DoNotTrack", to get the idea across.
DNT was mostly ignored, but if it had the weight of law behind it, it could still be great.
What I don't understand is why websites hosted outside the EU, for non-EU users have the cookie banners. At least keep it in Europe, use the IP to geolocate, let the EU users deal it. Some companies have outright banned EU traffic, sounds like only showing the banners for EU IPs seems ok.
The law doesn't just apply to pages being served to the EU, it applies to pages being served to EU citizens, wherever they happen to be at the moment. So geolocation is not a satisfactory option.
GDPR actually applies to companies which are doing business in the EU and storing personal data of anybody who resides in the EU.
Can anyone explain to me why the browser isn't the one asking the user? Since, y'know, the browser is the only thing that actually prevents a cookie from being placed or sent in the first place?
The former does not require consent. The latter does.
I feel like GDPR and such had some good spirit to it... but the result isn't what they had in mind and the consumers just click through everything / have no more clue. Piling on or malforming GDPR seems like it would just make the already unworkable situation more of a mess. I like the "ideas" behind GDPR, it's just this isn't the way to do it and really accomplish anything that really helps an individual.
It kind of feels like Prop 65 here in California. So many things have a 'this could cause cancer' tag that it is ignored 100% of the time, the exact opposite of its intent.
That was kinda vauge as I don't want to get into specifics as it is job related, but man it was timely ;)
internet visitors must be asked for permission in advance for any tracking software to be placed — such as third-party tracking cookies; tracking pixels; and browser fingerprinting tech — and that that permission must be freely obtained... Is this really what we want? Yes. I'm not even European, and I'm perfectly fine with this. Ask me to track me. If I like you, your web site, or your content, then sure. I'll give y…
But the little personal data you mention is not only given to them but to 224 different ad networks. Most of them make it impossible or difficult to opt out.
internet visitors must be asked for permission in advance for any tracking software to be placed — such as third-party tracking cookies; tracking pixels; and browser fingerprinting tech — and that that permission must be freely obtained... Is this really what we want? Yes. I'm not even European, and I'm perfectly fine with this. Ask me to track me. If I like you, your web site, or your content, then sure. I'll give y…
It's time GDPR is actually enforced. I tried to get my country's law enforcement on the tail of some violators but they're toothless . I don't understand the downvotes though, are you disagreeing that certain countries do not have the manpower to enforce GDPR to the extent they could? Please.
It's just that basically the entire world is violating the law, and it'll take a while to get to everyone.
What I don't understand is why websites hosted outside the EU, for non-EU users have the cookie banners. At least keep it in Europe, use the IP to geolocate, let the EU users deal it. Some companies have outright banned EU traffic, sounds like only showing the banners for EU IPs seems ok.
The law doesn't just apply to pages being served to the EU, it applies to pages being served to EU citizens, wherever they happen to be at the moment. So geolocation is not a satisfactory option.
From [1]:
Recital 23 provides a further clarification for cases where it’s unclear if a firm offers goods and services to EU data subjects:
Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.
Its too bad nobody invented a browser header to be sent with HTTP requests for Allow-Cookies: SURE_YES_WHATEVER_OMG_STOP_ASKING_PLZ
We could further optimize by just assuming that people are OK with it if they didn't send the header, and then have them opt in to sending it. Maybe we could call it something like "DoNotTrack", to get the idea across. DNT was mostly ignored, but if it had the weight of law behind it, it could still be great.
Some places still respect the header. Medium does - you'll get the warning for embedded content.
Its too bad nobody invented a browser header to be sent with HTTP requests for Allow-Cookies: SURE_YES_WHATEVER_OMG_STOP_ASKING_PLZ
Why would you want such a header? Would be much nicer if the - already existing! - do not track header was interpreted to mean "Allow-Cookies: HELL_NO_WHY_ARE_YOU_EVEN_ASKING_FUCK_OFF". Thanks to GDPR, the provider does NOT have to ask for consent for necessary cookies - only for the tracking stuff to which you have no incentive to agree. Every time a page pops up one of those "we value your privacy" screens, they're…
A more wordy version of the sentiment would be something like, "We value your privacy. At about $1.83. Could we have it, please?"