71–80 of 184 posts
I feel that this must be logical error related to ad hominem and fallacy of composition, instead of this is bad because bad people like it, this is good because bad people dislike it. That said I am generally happy with GDPR.
I worked in a small startup in Berlin and I remember we used to have a person dedicated to handle GDPR stuff. She had to go to Berlin data authority periodically and report status. I was really surprised given how small the company was, why we needed a dedicated person to handle all the bureaucracy. Apparently it was the law. Also with the new package law in EU. I believe all these laws are how EU creates employment…
there is a whole campaign online about hating on the EU & its regulations.
I very much support their ideals and their people-centered mindset.
But in execution it’s that meme: US rocket lands in slow motion on reusable pad, Chinese rocket lands in slow motion on reusable pad, European hand in slow motion closes a water bottle cap that is permanently attached to the bottle and always hits you in the nose.
there is a whole campaign online about hating on the EU & its regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie banners come from the earlier ePrivacy Directive, and while it was possible to comply by not storing cookies at all, if you want to store data on the user's browser you do need to get their consent, hence the cookie banner.
You don't need explicit consent for functional cookies, e.g. a session cookie or to store what preferences the user has selected on your settings page. It is implicitly given by the user telling you to treat them a certain way. For that you just need a notice somewhere on the page that reads along the lines of "this website uses cookies". It can be an unobtrusive note in your footer.
> strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service *explicitly requested* by the subscriber or user to provide the service.
But this the basis for the OK-only style of banner, to inform the user that certain functions require and will use cookies if they use those functions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do come from the ePrivacy directive but; > if you want to store data on the user's browser you do need to get their consent, hence the cookie banner. No - you need consent for storing cookies that are not “strictly necessary”. I can implement an offline app that stores data in cookies without consent. The current usage of the banner is overly litigious US focused simplification combined with malicious compliance…
No cookie is strictly necessary, you can encode it all into request tokens in the URL, so this is a meaningless exception.
For a programmer of some sort this may seem a meaningless exception, for a lawyer it is not.
I am not a lawyer, but I have had a few law classes and worked a bunch in the legal services branch. If I am asked legally speaking - is this cookie strictly necessary? I will ask is the cookie used only for the purposes of the service provided to the user and which the user expects to get.
If the cookie is used so that when the user logs in and goes to page two of the article they are reading they can read that article without having to log in again we can say it is needed for the service. If the cookie is used to provide recommendations for other articles by using their user history to compare with other user histories and what other users like to read it is not needed for the service. Although from the point of view of the company it sure might be nice to have.
If the cookie is used for your state management of the items you have placed in your basket so that you can go to buy those items it is needed, if the cookie is used to look up your past history and give you recommendations for other stuff to put in your basket, things you bought in the past why not buy some more of those, or how often you rated products you bought badly or anything not required for the current transaction you are doing to go smoothly it is not needed.
As a general rule lawyers and the courts are good at sorting this stuff out, but as edge cases get complicated so does code, and nobody wants to handle all that stuff themselves, so instead they pay for a company that develops cookie banners and everybody gets asked if they accept cookies or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a physical product and upon learning European regulations, I quickly decided I was going to spend 0 time designing it for Europe. If I made millions, sure, pay someone to figure it out. But I was not going to waste design time early on. I can't imagine how much this affects small business in Europe.
These are just general barriers to international trade, though. Small manufacturers in Europe may likewise decide not to design for US regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are just general barriers to international trade, though. Small manufacturers in Europe may likewise decide not to design for US regulations.
No (what I’m fairly sure is being referred to is that) there are (very recent) significant additional barriers to trade between EU member states, which disproportionately impact small businesses.
GDPR itself is quite a good law. It's implementation and enforcement are not. E.g. the nag problem would have been solved simply and effectively with something like do-not-track header (probably as OS setting, as apps are often even worse than websites with tracking). Also enforcement of obvious violations taking years and years, especially against large corporations, means it's just violated all the time. EU also fa…
The do-not-track header is a nice idea but could never have worked. The GDPR is based on the idea that you can only store certain data about users if you have their consent to do so. Bearing in mind that most users have no idea what a header is and no idea how to configure their browsers, a user simply not sending a particular header does not imply consent to store information beyond that which is absolutely necessar…
there is a whole campaign online about hating on the EU & its regulations.