191–200 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of ways? Better features, better support, better performance. If you can't beat the free offering, then go home.
If you can't beat the free offering, then go home. In the real world of physical goods, there are laws against this. But Google's a tech company, so anything goes.
The market should just create a better solution or find investors to call the bluff of the offending company and make even more money
i’d support any legislation that booted google, fb, ms, adobe, salesforce, and a whole host of other surveillance tech companies from any and all levels of government. it’s literally as important as the separation of church and state. in fact, i’d love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly separating corporate interests from governmental ones, in all facets of civic life (e.g., campaign finance).
> in fact, i’d love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly separating corporate interests from governmental ones I don't think you comprehend the scope of what you're suggesting. I work for a school district and I'm currently migrating our system from using one commercial bus routing service to another... using Windows, SQL Server, Teams, etc. from Microsoft... using a laptop, dock, three monitors, keyboard, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ah, the ad hominem, never a good sign for the proceeding argument. GP never says that you’re naive, but the comment was.
either way (intent can also be multi-modal), it signals a triggered response and is entirely superfluous and distracting. it's worth setting that aside, even after writing it, and examining the emotional underpinnings that led to the response in the first place. we learn a lot about our own subconsciousness that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> meaning that Google itself does not violate GDPR, but only the websites that use it. This is so baffling to me. Google has subsidiaries in the EU. The fact that it's ok to give a product to a EU client which can't be used in accordance with the law, and the client is responsible, is just idiotic.
I don’t find it idiotic. It was the client’s decision to spy on its users. I have no sympathy for companies who make that decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a user, I don't want to give this info. I'm glad the EU is giving folks an avenue to express this preference.
I provide free tutorials and articles like this. If you don't want to provide this info then I don't want to provide you free content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just naive. Government offices/agencies are so tightly coupled with packages like office 365 that forcefully separating them would require home built solutions which would always be terrible, less secure, and more expensive to the tax payer. There’s a lot of good these products can provide, granted they are properly audited and have high security requirements.
ah, the ad hominem , never a good sign for the proceeding argument. there are a number of other office suites that are entirely adequate for bureaucratic organizations to build methodical processes around (which is what bureaucracies do). the capabilities of the underlying tools don’t matter much in this regard. also, audits aren’t meant to prove anything (like security), but instead to shift liability.
An ad hominem means using an insult as the basis for rejecting an argument, e.g. 'that is wrong because you are [attack]'. Saying an argument is naive and then explaining why is not an ad hominem.
Good. US citizens should be, at least, disappointed that their government is so bad at protecting their privacy, that US law is so far behind the times. To those companies and people who find these EU decisions baffling or inconvenient: tough. If you had had respect for your users this would not be an issue. You would already not be spying on them. To website visitors: if you see a cookie banner, the site is asking p…
Can you point me to the part of the ban that says it's about protecting users from "spying in general" and not "protecting users from spying by US companies instead of EU companies that EU member states can obtain PII from at any time"?
i’d support any legislation that booted google, fb, ms, adobe, salesforce, and a whole host of other surveillance tech companies from any and all levels of government. it’s literally as important as the separation of church and state. in fact, i’d love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly separating corporate interests from governmental ones, in all facets of civic life (e.g., campaign finance).
i’d support any legislation that booted google, fb, ms, adobe, salesforce, and a whole host of other surveillance tech companies from any and all levels of government. it’s literally as important as the separation of church and state. in fact, i’d love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly separating corporate interests from governmental ones, in all facets of civic life (e.g., campaign finance).
> i’d love to see a constitutional amendment explicitly separating corporate interests from governmental ones How is that possible, since corporations are, by definition, creations of government through law?
Italy is the 4th in a string of recent decisions across the EU. (We're tracking these cases on isgoogleanalyticsillegal.com along with details for each.) Note that it's not illegal to use GA entirely, just illegal to use in its default state which transmits PII to the US.
https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/6366371?hl=en#zi...