91–100 of 216 posts
I wish people would be rational when supporting privacy increasing things. GDPR could have been much better and it saddens me that it was ruined, and defended by, zealots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cookieEnabled is not reliable for handling third-party cookies, unless you also load a third-party frame running JS. (And even then it doesn't work like you'd want in many browsers.)
Sorry if I missed something, but AFAIK grandparent wasn't talking about third party cookies, only about having cookies disabled and being unable to store the consent flag, so I don't see how this applies to this specific discussion.
It also highlights how, in general, this is a hard problem. Compliance with this law without creating a dead-static page has subtle complications.
We care about your privacy notices have become the bane of my life.
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…
There is insufficient evidence attempting to comply with GDPR is worth the cost.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're going to nag you until you click this button so we can't get in trouble for profiting off the data you give us. That is explicitly against the regulation. Consent should be freely given otherwise it's invalid. The problem is that there is no enforcement around this (despite it being very easy to detect this behavior at scale by running a web scraper) so they keep doing it and profiting off it.
> Consent should be freely given otherwise it's invalid. I tried to figure out what this actually means but it's very hazy. A naggy news website isn't performing a contract. Are they provisioning a service (assuming you did not buy or order or subscribe to anything)? "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the prov…
If your website takes 1 click to accept tracking but several clicks to deny it then you're already in breach (assuming the law was actually enforced, which it isn't at the moment).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't stalk people The problem is there is no consistent definition of stalking in this context. Which could be the difference between a store manager watching how people move around a store vs following you home and going through your trash.
Stalking is collecting any information, that either by itself or combined with other information can be used to identify someone with reasonable probability. IP addresses, browser/device details (fingerprinting, etc), usage patterns can fall into this category.
I work as a developer in the European public sector, we already took privacy and security rather serious because the laws governing it had always been and are still tougher than the GDPR. I actually like that the EU is doing something, and I guess this is the best you get from a bureaucracy, but what it’s changed is that we document everything. Whenever I build anything that moves privacy data, even if it’s just hook…
There is a privacy benefit to adding friction to spreading personal data around everywhere. At the margin, some services will decide not to bother processing non-essential personal data just to avoid the paperwork. And really, that's one of the excesses that GDPR was a reaction to: that the "default" was "track everything in case the data magically becomes valuable," and now the it's become "perhaps not."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Providing the service assumes staying in business, no?
No, there's no protection for failed business models, as there should not be.
What the GDPR does do, quite successfully, is build a moat around Google so wide and deep as to minimize competition with them, because they're one of the few firms that can both (a) afford the engineers with the technical expertise to comply with the law while accomplishing their goals and (b) afford the lawyers to address the issue when they fail at the former.
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…
> The majority of these aren't actually compliant There is insufficient evidence attempting to comply with GDPR is worth the cost.