131–140 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a /etc/hosts file that redirects 10000 tracker domains to 0.0.0.0 then you don’t even need to clear any browsing data. Plus, you don’t see ads anymore without any browser plugins.
pi-hole is much better and easier to maintain than a per device hosts file
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you. These so-called "privacy activists" seem to have no clue how much European corporations are spending on data management, privacy controls, legal due diligence and finally serving the customers' GDPR requests. The last one is the publicly visible part, but it really is just the tip of an iceberg in investment on compliance. This is made even more frustrating by that at least I find GDPR to be not very prec…
I think the GDPR is pretty clear: it is illegal to process personal data if you cannot apply an exception listed in the regulation. Also all data that might be deanonymized by some means is personal data. The message is clear: if you put others at risk, you are at risk to get fined. Yes, this makes many, sometimes ideotic things, illegal. But not I also cross a red light on foot from time to time and I do not think i…
> But not I also cross a red light on foot from time to time and I do not think it should be made legal. Regulations that leave a freedom what to prosecute are not bad by design.
This is not comparable as private citizens are able to petition and sue under GDPR. Hence, there is no similar discretion of what actually gets prosecuted as for jaywalking. It would be comparable if I, as a driver of a vehicle, was able to take any jaywalker to court. Which would be indeed complete madness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the GDPR is pretty clear: it is illegal to process personal data if you cannot apply an exception listed in the regulation. Also all data that might be deanonymized by some means is personal data. The message is clear: if you put others at risk, you are at risk to get fined. Yes, this makes many, sometimes ideotic things, illegal. But not I also cross a red light on foot from time to time and I do not think i…
Yes, GDPR is very clear until it's not. Tell me for example how would you respect the right to be forgotten for web server access logs? The information "IP x.y.z requested /index.html at dd/mm/yyyy" is PII under GDPR. Meaning you have to a) declare that you are collecting it, b) be able to produce all data for the person using IP x.y.z upon request, and c) be able to delete all log rows relating to x.y.z when they as…
In which case is the IP address in the access log helpful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's something the article should have mentioned: 4 years on, and people still think GDPR is about cookies – and even responsible for the intrusive consent pop-ups! It is a testament to the power of the adtech giants and all the other shitty shady businesses, how they managed to twist the narrative. And that's on HN, a presumably tech savvy audience. What chance does the "normal" population stand?
Lots of people on HN work for advertising companies such as Google, Facebook etc, tech savvy or not has little to do with it.
I completely reject the premise of this, that one is somehow EU citizens are not personally responsible for the information they themselves put online. The most hilarious thing is cookies! For example, cookies exist, and they work a certain way... and despite not liking how they work.. they are here, and not going away, and imposing some kind of contract-law of cookies being accepted or rejected totally ignores that…
Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.
This is an excellent quote that reflects a notable share of opinions that I see in the comments here on HN whenever the GDPR is discussed: > Hardly any other area of law is politicized to that extent – at least I have never heard that building or tax codes were openly ignored with the argument that compliance would “undermine the business model” of a company. The privacy bubble accepts such narratives as a legitimate…
> compliance would “undermine the business model” of a company This is a disingenuous framing of the argument as it commonly appears on HN, sometimes by me. The complaint isn't with respect to what the rules permit and prohibit. (Some people complain about that, but it's not the common mode.) It's the enforcement mechanism. Complaint initiated. Multi-forum and portable. Imprecise on implementation details. Those fact…
Because when "you're the not the customer, you're the product" applies, then the GDPR does effectively undermine the business model. Targeted advertising appears to be immensely profitable; raising boundaries on how you process subject's data, and how/to what extent you profile them, cuts into those profits.
The GDPR recognized the protection of PII as a fundamental right. The way I read the argument I quoted, the problem is not that e.g. Facebook would like to comply with the GDPR but cannot do so for e.g. imprecise implementation details. The problem is the GDPR significantly impairs Facebook's ability to generate revenue. And to that end, it appears that Facebook is indeed "openly ignoring" the GDPR to some extent, at least from what I recall from the ongoing complaints by NOYB and others.
[To clarify, I don't disagree with your particular argument; on the contrary, the flaws you pointed out are evident. I just don't think that is was the argument being made here.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you. These so-called "privacy activists" seem to have no clue how much European corporations are spending on data management, privacy controls, legal due diligence and finally serving the customers' GDPR requests. The last one is the publicly visible part, but it really is just the tip of an iceberg in investment on compliance. This is made even more frustrating by that at least I find GDPR to be not very prec…
I think the GDPR is pretty clear: it is illegal to process personal data if you cannot apply an exception listed in the regulation. Also all data that might be deanonymized by some means is personal data. The message is clear: if you put others at risk, you are at risk to get fined. Yes, this makes many, sometimes ideotic things, illegal. But not I also cross a red light on foot from time to time and I do not think i…
One question I've always had with this is whether it counts as personal data if it can only be de-anonymized by combining it with other data. So Company A manages some subset of a person's data.Company B manages a different subset (different app or whatever). Individually it is completely anonymous but if you combine them, it's trivial to de-anonymize.
Is this covered by GDPR? Both companies? What if one company dissolves and that data set is deleted?
Obviously a contrived example but an interesting thought experiment, I think.
I completely reject the premise of this, that one is somehow EU citizens are not personally responsible for the information they themselves put online. The most hilarious thing is cookies! For example, cookies exist, and they work a certain way... and despite not liking how they work.. they are here, and not going away, and imposing some kind of contract-law of cookies being accepted or rejected totally ignores that…
The idea of cookies was to establish sessions - something which can be done by other means, so cookies aren't needed. It would be good to have browsers which would clean all cookies every browser restart. Not enough though, some browser sessions can last months, so a better solution is needed.
How does one actually do that? Embed a session id in every request/response?