Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the internet I want. I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. I'm part of the EU electorate. Are you?
>I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. Neither do I, but prove to me that this actually happens. Namely the surveillance part with online trackers.
Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
241–250 of 272 posts
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#242Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#243Ideally browsers would have an API to handle GDPR requests natively, the way they do for hardware access, and users would be able to set the default level of access, as well as lists of exceptions for some domains. Of course, Google will never provide such API in Chrome as it would be bad for their core business of spying on people in order to sell them more stuff.
It exists, and it's called the DNT header. It was deprecated because ironically, it was used for user fingerprinting.
DNT isn't deprecated in Firefox or Chrome.
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#244How much simple analytics are considered reasonable? Simple example counting users and say what country they’re from.
Technically not required to make the site work but might count as legitimate use?
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it inconvenient and search result partitioning to use this? I haven't come across/noticed it before. In English for example we use the French order acronym UTC, not UCT or CUT. (Though to be fair in the UK outside of a computing context we mostly use GMT.)
I generally prefer when we agree on a spelling, even if it isn't in English. CERN is a good example of this, no English speaker in their right mind would call it ECNR.
Yes, that's what I meant. (Though I stand corrected, UTC is not French either, but the effect is the same - we both use one.)
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#246Earlier 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"
> "my house, my rules" A website is in no way "your house".
Why not?
Essentially, if I build and host a hobby site, it's my digital property. You have the right to see what are the conditions to visit (essentially: fetch) it and if you don't agree, you are free to go.
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#247GitHub 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.
> I believe there is also a lot of "cargo culting" where site admins copy what everyone else is doing without understanding the legal background. And an entire industry with companies like TrustArc built on pitching and selling this crap even if not required and/or if their solution wouldn't achieve compliance anyway.
This is very convenient, because I can add this one line to my ublock origin config and thereby eliminate many cookie banners:
###onetrust-consent-sdk
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilariously wrong. Small companies have less code and complexity but don't have internal resources specialised in law, security and web development available to fix things. They usually also don't have the money to bring outsiders to do it for them.
> Small companies have less code and complexity but don't have internal resources specialised in law, security and web development available to fix things. When you clamp all those things together, this sounds like a great burden. Please tell me, how these poor small businesses comply with, you know, actual laws, rules and regulations that they have to comply with? By breaking them? GDPR for small businesses is much…
> When you clamp all those things together, this sounds like a great burden. Please tell me, how these poor small businesses comply with, you know, actual laws, rules and regulations that they have to comply with? By breaking them?
Most of the time they don't.
Ever wonder why food health and safety inspections discover serious issues in basically all restaurants they inspect?
It's because people owning and operating restaurants usually aren't knowledgable enough about these topics, don't have the time or don't have the money to things differently or all three at the same time.
Most restaurants stay in business because the inspection are generally pretty lenient (issue warnings and don't close the business down) and are also understaffed compared to the number of businesses that have to be inspected.
This is a simple example and I'm purposefully targeting a part of the law (food health and safety) that is directly linked to the core business (restaurants). I'm not even going into issues that could be found in other areas (accounting, human resources, etc.) of said business.
Now let's try to imagine how a restaurant is going to approach GDPR compliance.
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Toot/thread author here. You are of course right. I couldn't pack all details in those toots. I had to break it down to the absolute basics that are often misunderstood: Not every cookie needs consent. The way this is presented nowadays in these popups is deliberately misleading and trying to move the blame to some anonymous political entity when in reality it simply isn't that way.
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…
Your quote is from the 2002/58/EC directive, which is amended by directive 2009/136/EC [1]. The latter says :
> (66) [...] Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. [...]
Hence, so long as the use of cookies or similar is strictly necessary for the specific service requested by the user, a website doesn't have the obligation to obtain their permission.
[1] https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/dir_2...
Re: Stop whining about “The EU Cookie Policy” and improve your ways
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Small companies have less code and complexity but don't have internal resources specialised in law, security and web development available to fix things. When you clamp all those things together, this sounds like a great burden. Please tell me, how these poor small businesses comply with, you know, actual laws, rules and regulations that they have to comply with? By breaking them? GDPR for small businesses is much…
> When you clamp all those things together, this sounds like a great burden. Please tell me, how these poor small businesses comply with, you know, actual laws, rules and regulations that they have to comply with? By breaking them? Most of the time they don't. Ever wonder why food health and safety inspections discover serious issues in basically all restaurants they inspect? It's because people owning and operating…
> Most of the time they don't.
Don't comply? Most of the time?
> Ever wonder why food health and safety inspections discover serious issues in basically all restaurants they inspect?
As a person whose mother has worked at restaurants for over 40 years, and whose best friends owned a restaurant for close to 20, I can tell you that those "serious issues" and "all restaurants" are FUD.
> Most restaurants stay in business because the inspection are generally pretty lenient (issue warnings and don't close the business down)
So you write this ^. And then you immediately go on to write this:
> Now let's try to imagine how a restaurant is going to approach GDPR compliance.
It will be the same: they will get it wrong the first time, get issued a warning, fix it, and carry on.
Don't forget that those poor hapless restaurants also have to deal with:
- handling money
- taxes
- accounting
- labor laws
- zoning regulations
- smoking regulaitons
- fire regulations
- contract laws (becuase they have contracts with many external parties)
And this is why your "most of the time they don't comply" is bullshit is that they do comply, most of the time. And when thry don't, they get issued a warning, fix their shit, or go out of business. This is no different.
And yeah, small business (or any business for that matter) really has no business collecting my private data, and selling it to third-parties.