81–90 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps Google could license a third party in the EU to host analytics for EU customers?
This is an option. I saw somewhere a news that they might license the entire GCloud to a French provider but I can't remember where and when.
What's really puzzling is that Google Analytics never got banned because of antitrust laws. It's the most obvious example of predatory pricing I've ever seen. How is a smaller company supposed to compete against a free product?
I think you’d have a very good case against Amazon, and probably Uber/Lyft, and I’ve long wondered why no one sued them over it. But in Google’s case, Analytics is profitable for the same reason Youtube is profitable—Google makes money off the data they gather.
The only people that have the work power to put equivalent alternatives in place are the big corporations, that will anyway find a loophole.
I run my small blog, and I can't spend days or even weeks to setup a subpar analytics solution. I won't even start talking about self-hosting an analytics solution which would probably double my monthly server cost for a website on which I earn 0€.
In 2030, if we continue on that trend, websites will be in two categories: belonging to huge companies, or running illegally. It's baffling that people are applauding the end of the free web.
Suppose I run a website in the us and a user in Italy connects to it. Does this mean I’m now breaking the law serving them the website? My connection logs now have pii. What if I use a cdn that has points of presence in Italy and still pings my server with a head request and the end user ip? Am I also now breaking Italian law by using google analytics?
> After introduction of the GDPR in EEA it became common practice for websites located outside EEA to serve HTTP 451 errors to EEA visitors instead of trying to comply with this new privacy law. For instance, many regional U.S. news sites no longer serve web browsers from the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, just GDPR? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation but I do see a reason why a user might want to access the non-GDPR web.
How would you write such a law? You can't make exceptions based on what's convenient for some business. Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products? > ? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation To commit frauds, for example?
I also believe that should be opt-in.
> To commit frauds, for example?
Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting.
Suppose I run a website in the us and a user in Italy connects to it. Does this mean I’m now breaking the law serving them the website? My connection logs now have pii. What if I use a cdn that has points of presence in Italy and still pings my server with a head request and the end user ip? Am I also now breaking Italian law by using google analytics?
As the article specifically states:
The Italian SA found that the website operators using GA collected, via cookies, information on user interactions with the respective websites, visited pages and services on offer. The multifarious set of data collected in this connection included the user device IP address along with information on browser, operating system, screen resolution, selected language, date and time of page viewing. This information was found to be transferred to the USA. In determining that the processing was unlawful, the Italian SA reiterated that an IP address is a personal data and would not be anonymised even if it were truncated – given Google’s capabilities to enrich such data through additional information it holds.
So, unless you are collecting EU citizens user data, transferring it to US and have the capabilities to enrich such data through additional information you hold, no.
Suppose I run a website in the us and a user in Italy connects to it. Does this mean I’m now breaking the law serving them the website? My connection logs now have pii. What if I use a cdn that has points of presence in Italy and still pings my server with a head request and the end user ip? Am I also now breaking Italian law by using google analytics?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 > After introduction of the GDPR in EEA it became common practice for websites located outside EEA to serve HTTP 451 errors to EEA visitors instead of trying to comply with this new privacy law. For instance, many regional U.S. news sites no longer serve web browsers from the EU.
Suppose I run a website in the us and a user in Italy connects to it. Does this mean I’m now breaking the law serving them the website? My connection logs now have pii. What if I use a cdn that has points of presence in Italy and still pings my server with a head request and the end user ip? Am I also now breaking Italian law by using google analytics?
So, if you have a personal blog that grabs IPs? Not illegal. If you start a merch shop for your blog (or put in ads/sponsored content, etc.), then the whole site needs to be GDPR compliant.
I wish GDPR compliance would have been opt-in. For example, a GDPR compliant website could have sent a custom header indicating compliance, which the browser could have displayed in the address bar (a bit like HTTPS). Consumers would then have been free make the decision to not use websites which aren't GDPR compliant. Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block…
The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle. This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse. The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now…
wouldn’t the market react?