61–70 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of websites also consider analytics cookies as essential For a lot of websites, they are.
Under PECR, a cookie being essential means necessary to provide the requested service , not necessary to stay in business. If the user wants to view a news article, and you can serve the article without using analytics cookies, then PECR doesn't allow the cookie. (The situation for paywalls is complicated.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How, exactly, is a developer supposed to change state in a stateless protocol to denote that you've dismissed the cookie dialog if the user has disabled the feature that allows the developer to add state to the stateless protocol?
I believe his point is that if the user disabled cookies, there's no point in showing the banner. If you don't show the banner you can't track the user, of course. It's not hard. It's just a matter of checking for navigator.cookieEnabled .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of these aren't actually compliant. Tracking should be opt- in and consent should be freely given . If your notice is annoying enough that most people click accept (or if clicking decline is harder) then you are already in breach. A lot of websites also consider analytics cookies as essential and don't provide a way to decline those which isn't compliant either. These websites can be detected very easily…
I've seen a lot of people say this, but I'm just not convinced it's actually the law. It's not obvious to me that analytics cookies categorically can't be essential or that "freely given" implies strict UI neutrality between accepting and declining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't stalk people, and if you want to stalk them you need to ask them nicely and allow them to decline Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but in the real world a lot of people/sites rely on ad revenue, and ad revenue for the most part, requires tracking built in. So now if you legally force me to allow users to decline "stalking" you are basically allowing users to decline my monetization model and use my website…
Your site can be ad-supported, without GDPR popup, as long as you don't track your users to display those ads. You could even have relevant ads by using keywords instead of user data. That's what the NYT has done, and they've seen their revenue grow: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079
The options that appeared are (a) Accept (b) Manage Trackers
Manage trackers leads to this page
https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/privacy-policy#/cookie
Which seems to list lots of 3rd parties that will track me if I view the site. I'm told I have to go to their sites and opt out.
Has anyone beyond big tech actually figured out what the rules are yet?
The rules are very clear once you look past the fear-mongering. Don't stalk people, and if you want to stalk them you need to ask them nicely and allow them to decline. Don't be careless with user data so you minimize the likelihood of a breach, and if you do get breached then report it to the regulator and cooperate with them. In fact, "big tech" has figured out how to get around the rules by exploiting the lack of…
Hence the massive debate to this day over the rules.
I would pay a subscription to a news site if they spent all their time evaluating 2-5 year old events and determining which side was right. 2 years ago comments of "this will only benefit the lawyers" would be -50 points. Turns out... actually yeah.
That's actually a good idea. It's really frustrating how (in other types of news) a lot of buzz can be generated and then just silence and we forget it all and move on. But it's not really something that would sell well. Not many people care about yesterday's news, people want to know what's coming next and not what came out of some magazine's prediction several years ago.
But postmortems in the tech world do trend sometimes
a news cycle postmortem - someone pitch this in an elevator
Has anyone beyond big tech actually figured out what the rules are yet?
The rules are very clear once you look past the fear-mongering. Don't stalk people, and if you want to stalk them you need to ask them nicely and allow them to decline. Don't be careless with user data so you minimize the likelihood of a breach, and if you do get breached then report it to the regulator and cooperate with them. In fact, "big tech" has figured out how to get around the rules by exploiting the lack of…
> Don't stalk people
Are you just not aware of your own hypocrisy?
I would pay a subscription to a news site if they spent all their time evaluating 2-5 year old events and determining which side was right. 2 years ago comments of "this will only benefit the lawyers" would be -50 points. Turns out... actually yeah.
I thought that’s what everyone thought back then. At least all my friends were like, the lawyers will have a good time and be the only ones benefiting from this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can? If the user doesn’t opt-in to advertising then you could simply not allow them to use the site... Note, I’m not in any way an expert on the legality of it, but this seems like a silly argument to make. If anything, being more up-front with the model may open alternative methods of monetization (subscription-based, etc).
You can not [1] (though this is definitely the clause that at least in the US, I'm confident would be beaten down in court). And this is why I have such a problem with the rule. Without some dramatic changes, any video streaming site almost surely wouldn't be able to handle the substantially lower ad revenue and still make a profit if everyone actually opted out. Sites like Facebook would probably turn a profit, but…
I would pay a subscription to a news site if they spent all their time evaluating 2-5 year old events and determining which side was right. 2 years ago comments of "this will only benefit the lawyers" would be -50 points. Turns out... actually yeah.
There is a bit deja vu, since at that time we were pointing out similar flaws in the DPD (lack of enforcement, lack of clarity, govt inefficiencies, the inability for proponents to separate intent from reality, etc). Sadly, there is an absolute "for or against" mentality out there. You can't make it clear that the implementation of such a law would be poor enough to not justify it being enacted in the first place les…