41–50 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie pop ups were a thing before, I guess being able to opt-out is a neat feature but there are certainly companies who do not comply when you choose to opt-out. (Looking at you Verizon, yes I know it’s you behind “oath”.)
If i see the "oath" message when following a link, i close the browser tab :)
Yes it has. Companies are now forced to build architectures that take data classification and privacy in mind. It's been a really great addition and a important check on the data economy.
Do you still receive targeted advertisements (assuming you have not opted-in to them)?
In terms of what a company has to do, not that much changed since GDPR's predecessor. The difference between the previous law from the 90s and GDPR is mainly publicity (privacy wasn't as big a topic in the 90s) and higher fines, so what I notice as an EU resident is that more companies implement it. (Also companies abroad, but I can't say that e.g. Google's update impacted me beyond annoying banners: they still say "…
I'd also be interested in knowing the tangible results on a individual level so far.
I'm an EU resident with a SaaS business storing EU personal information. It's forced us to think more carefully how we build systems to pick up, retain and scrub data. So all clients (>1,000) and their clients (likely in the millions) have benefited They absolutely won't have noticed a difference - by design! Unbeknownst to downstream users, there are now more rigorous systems in place to manage this information and…
Almost all clients took an honest look at data collection and retention policies.
Data was classified and tools built around the GDPR framework to allow customers to be able to fully retrieve, request changes to, or delete their information from servers.
Most clients ended up collecting less data and retaining it for a shorter time.
All in all from my perspective it seems the law did much of what it was designed to do.
So there's been a big change on how my data is being handled in the real world - any effect on random websites online are just a nice-to-have bonus, it's sort of moving in the right direction but it's obviously not a priority in enforement and a better treatment for that can be tweaked in a next version of GDPR, the important thing was to tackle all the big relationships (and privacy abuse potential) people have with e.g. their cell phone provider, supermarket chains, lenders, etc, which are now mostly 'clean' and the major online players such as Facebook, Google, etc which will probably require years in courts.
GDPR is trade restriction as the notion of "digital privacy" is perpetrated by those who want to restrain US tech companies.
Well, the cookie popups have helped me become more selective in my browsing. If they don't make it reasonably easy to opt out, I just don't open the site. But the real benefit is this: Some random online store that i bought something from once decided to send me a spam sms around black friday. One email and 24 hours later, all the data they had about me was deleted. Of course, this only works if you're in europe buyi…
The cookie pop ups were a thing before, I guess being able to opt-out is a neat feature but there are certainly companies who do not comply when you choose to opt-out. (Looking at you Verizon, yes I know it’s you behind “oath”.)
If I take no action, accept the default conditions and don't opt out of anything, then that must be interpreted as me not granting permission to anything - there are a bunch of data use-cases that you're allowed to do without my consent, so you don't need the popups for that, but otherwise no informed explicit affirmative action means no consent.
For example, I now am far more willing to consider signing up for a loyalty card, as long as they don't use my data for profiling purposes. I didn't have many cards before, but the number has grown.
Same thing applies to online shops: I am far more willing to create an account when I see that my rights are being observed, and I can eg delete my data easily.
This, of course, assumes a processor that would rather be compliant with the GDPR in its current form, rather than fight it. Facebook, for example, needs to profile, and is using an IMO ridiculous interpretation of the GDPR to weasel it out of the consent issue. Let's hope the courts do the right thing.