181–190 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, before GDPR, when all of this was happening, those sites still saw increase in visitors and still made money, because people learned to ignore the ads since the design of the core website was pretty good and ads were not obtrusive to user experience.
"Hey, people used to put up with that shit" isn't exactly a winning argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have GDPR-compliant analytics, like what Fathom does. I also built my own analytics solution that simply shows me my blog article reads per day, week, month, and year (that is all I care about). It's a simple bit of JS that sends a request to my endpoint when the user spends 30 seconds on a page with an article. I also do some light user agent filtering (no "curl" or "python" in the agent string, for example)…
> many websites use dinosaur software like Google Analytics that hasn't been keeping up with the times Or maybe has a conflict of interest, and its true purpose is to act as spyware on behalf of Google? Google absolutely has the skills to build a GDPR-compliant version if they wanted to. The problem is that they aren't in the business of giving away free stuff. GA is only free because they need to give you an incenti…
As far as I understand (and I could be wrong), the cookie notices exist because analytics providers do not guarantee that this personal data won't be associated with the cookie fingerprint in their systems. Cookies themselves are only mentioned once in relation to this in the GDPR text:
> Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them.
If the advertising ID/fingerprint was kept unassociated with personal data capable of identifying a natural person, there would be no need for the cookie notice in my understanding. However, I am not a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why it isn't solved in this way: You get a banner on your first visit, with a list "here are all the cookies and ways how we use your data, if you are not fine with it, please leave this website" This should be an option for small private websites (different rules for FB, Google and alike), because no one forces you to use a site, same as "my house, my rules"
The issue is that there is too much money to be left on the table advertising wise, so instead you are going to see every way to get around anything GDPR that is going to progressively shit up the internet. In the end, you can be tracked without cookies using fingerprinting, and AI will make this job easier and easier. So the banner is pretty much irrelevant technologically. You will also see companies that make popu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to accept because many, many people won't agree with you and do give a fuck.
When you say "many, many" I take that to mean "a substantial proportion" and I think you may be making the mistake of estimating your proportions from the population of people in tech forums, rather than from the global population of internet users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to conflict with the ePrivacy directive: > Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users ar…
It's not in force yet, not even passed.
However, it still doesn't require a banner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that there is too much money to be left on the table advertising wise, so instead you are going to see every way to get around anything GDPR that is going to progressively shit up the internet. In the end, you can be tracked without cookies using fingerprinting, and AI will make this job easier and easier. So the banner is pretty much irrelevant technologically. You will also see companies that make popu…
> get around anything GDPR Nitpick: none of those dark patterns "get around" the GDPR - they merely get away with it due to a (hopefully temporary) lack of enforcement. GDPR explicitly disallows annoying the user into accepting and tricks such as hiding the decline button, etc. > So the banner is pretty much irrelevant technologically That's why the GDPR doesn't explicitly target cookies or a specific means of tracki…
>Tech bros love to whine about "The EU cookie policy" that simply doesn't exist the way they imagine it. All these popups are the most radical way to interpret the explicit consent demanded by regulations when sending data to a 3rd party. An ongoing provocation by the ad/tracker industry to blame their ruthless data hoarding on the EU. The official EU website has one of these annoying pop-ups. Are they part of the pr…
That one's the pretty much the optimal implementation though. * it's a small bar on the bottom * the site works without clicking on the consent buttons * it has clear "opt-in" or "opt-out" options * no annoying "customize my permissions" sub-menu with tons of enabled switches and dark patterns
It's strictly performative, they're setting session and tracking cookies without consent. Whatever you click on their "consent" (or if you click at all) is irrelevant and has no effect on the cookies being set. It's been that way for a long time and nobody cares (I've reported it before and never got a reply).
It's a classic "do as I say, not as I do". Rules are for us, not for them.
GitHub got rid of their banners in 2020: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ I believe there is also a lot of "cargo culting" where site admins copy what everyone else is doing without understanding the legal background.
That’s what happens when you add regulations to an industry of small players who can’t afford to spend time or money in understanding these things
It's easier for small businesses to comply with GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could probably enter with a heavy kick. Modern society enables miracles.
Privacy or security?