321–330 of 457 posts
One click opt out should be mandatory. It's obviously unscrupulous to force you to go through several pages of text when I could've clicked one button. Most the time I just use a special blocker script or reader mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those two are linked fundamentally - even medieval and ancient rulers hardly what we would call enlightened knew that making unenforcible laws only breed contempt. When they can set up anywhere and access everywhere it is asking to be flouted. Geolocated financial intergration is about the only area they can start to touch with enforcement. Without that they have about as much sway as a backwater dictatorship writing…
The law isn't unenforceable. The law is unenforced. The reason it is unenforced is that the agencies that seem to have the responsibility to do so are understaffed and afraid of the drawn out litigation and political backlash.
All this on top of the larger concerns in the GDPR - for example, companies that, once they've collected data for one purpose, proceed to process it for another purpose without any legal basis at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean, like a checkbox that sends a `DNT` header set to `1`? I think both the old cookie law and the GDPR kind of (directly or indirectly) include that case†, and sites know that they don't even need to display the dialog if they receive the header. † the consent (or rather, intent not to consent) is explicit, and although non-interactive at the site level it was interactive at the browser level until MS defaulted…
Technically with GDPR defaulting to 1 is the only correct option. MS were only ahead of the time :)
A law enforcing DNT would be good, but honestly it would change the semantics of the header.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the stock owners.
If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years. Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?
I hate ads as much as everybody else, and this reads to me like "given the choice only 9% of people would pay for their meal", should we forbid charging for food then? Probably not. As sad as the current ads-powered internet is becoming I haven't seen any promising viable alternative, and sure non-tracking-based ads is not the same thing as having no ads, but it significantly moves the needle in that same direction i…
I don't want that one piece of furniture I (or my SO using my computer) looked at on Wayfair to follow me to the motorcycle website. I definitely don't need an ad empire following all of my activity on the internet and knowing that I'm a 35 year old man that wants to buy a motorcycle, needs a plumber, wears size 32 pants, and looks at green couches among all the other data they are collecting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt So who's liable in this scenario? Someone in the C suite? The coder monkey who implemented it? Someone in between? All of the above? Unless I'm mis-remembering, the maximum fine under GDPR is a % of the total revenue of the company, so depending on the size of the company, this could result in…
I'd say the stock owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A viable alternative: show non tracking ads and see if it keeps the lights on, otherwise shut down? I'm not sure that'd be viable in general, like what would the economic impact globally if all websites that barely can manage to keep the lights on today because of effective ads just disappeared? Maybe the impact could be even positive, like by disallowing politically very-targeted ads, among all other kinds of targ…
I wouldn't miss it. If they can find a viable non-tracking business model, I'd imagine most would. People used to pay for newspapers so there's pretty good precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So pension funds and teacher's unions? Grandpa's nest egg?
If people were affected by the things they give companies money to do, perhaps they'd be a lot more careful about what they give companies money to do.
The article says mobile users are more likely to engage with the banner. Rightly so, cause it takes up precious screen real estate. What are some ways I can protect myself more when browsing the web through my phone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to remind you and everyone else about Firefox reader mode. Solves like 99% of this user-enslaving shit.
This doesn't work on Yahoo sites which redirect to a different URL for the consent.
Oh and default no js means that I typically don't see those pubups in the first place.