341–350 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Not sure why people are downvoting my statement, it seems quite the ample time to come up with a solution.
Blocking people is a solution. I don't like it either, but if your target audience is solely the US, I can see why you might decide to do that. Edit: Agreed... placating people with lies doesn't help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's way different because big tech cos acquire and retain far more data about individuals than anyone ever expected to be available. 10-ish years ago, it wasn't possible to retroactively subpoena a year of minute-by-minute location history, because unless you had an ankle monitor, that data didn't exist. You couldn't get a letter-by-letter log of every term typed into a search engine or a log of the amount of time s…
Well you can also view things a different way. It will be a lot harder for real criminals to get away with anything in the future. Now it becomes scary only if the authorities decide to go amok and make criminals of us all, but assuming it goes this way without anyone pushing back is not too realistic.
Just like security and usability are tradeoffs, so is this.
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.
I'd certainly never consider visiting normal US news sites unless - like in this case - they were linked to by HN or some other aggregator I do frequent.
Thus, it really makes no sense for them to comply with the GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal there.
You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every website wants to track you. Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many websites disre…
Why does the European Commission's website want to track me? They have a banner, too. In fact, I have yet to visit an EU government website that doesn't have a banner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.
What I'm wondering about is: If you're not targeting an EU-audience, and you therefore might not even have servers in the EU, and certainly don't have EU-based revenue streams - why do you even care? Can an EU court even do anything in this situation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal there.
You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every website wants to track you. Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many websites disre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>USPS has been storing images of all envelopes delivered for many years now. If this was of any doubt at all - they’ve made this accessible over email. If you enable “informed delivery” you get an email of the scan before it hits your mail box.
> USPS has been storing images of all envelopes delivered for many years now. You mean those emails I get that the USPS claims it doesn't have an image for? Oh don't worry they always have images of the blanket spam everyone gets. But actual mail with bills or letters? It's more usual to get "A piece of mail that we do not have an image for is included in today's mail."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every website wants to track you. Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many websites disre…
>You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users So they are mandatory, since all websites NEED advertising revenue and analytics to function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They (the State prosecutors) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case. They should have the right to do it. Actually doing it should be as difficult as humanly possible. It should not be as easy as sending a letter to Google and getting a suspect's entire life records in return.
Why not? How is this different from a warrant to search a home? Would you argue in that case that personal paper letters should be kept in a safe that's very difficult to open for law enforcement even if they have the warrant to do it?
Because if it's too easy they will be tempted to do it as a matter of routine.
> How is this different from a warrant to search a home?
They have to actually go to the home in question in order to execute the warrant. They can't automatically search all homes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's way different because big tech cos acquire and retain far more data about individuals than anyone ever expected to be available. 10-ish years ago, it wasn't possible to retroactively subpoena a year of minute-by-minute location history, because unless you had an ankle monitor, that data didn't exist. You couldn't get a letter-by-letter log of every term typed into a search engine or a log of the amount of time s…
Well you can also view things a different way. It will be a lot harder for real criminals to get away with anything in the future. Now it becomes scary only if the authorities decide to go amok and make criminals of us all, but assuming it goes this way without anyone pushing back is not too realistic.