How much data is that? How do we know? It's not clear to me how the ICCL will know that "all data collected" is deleted. Even if the IAB is sanctioned or you storm their datacenters, the ICCL said that the tracking industry collected data through the IAB. How is the ICCL going to ensure that the tracking industry deletes the collected data?
They will ask the companies to delete the data and take action if there is evidence they didn't, just like how all of GDPR is enforced.
How would they know if they did or didn't, though?
To be frank, the practical result of GDPR is that it made my browsing experience worse. Nearly every website opens with an annoying cookie popup, often blocking the content (or reducing it to a fraction of my screen on mobile). I've never once clicked "Yes, track everything", except by accident when tricked into it by deceptive UI (eg. a button designed to look more inviting than its less invasive counterpart). I get…
Nope.
> there are less intrusive ways for companies to comply.
These intrusive ways are companies not complying. This is what is currently being litigated, an industry pulling out all the stops to not comply with the GDPR.
To be frank, the practical result of GDPR is that it made my browsing experience worse. Nearly every website opens with an annoying cookie popup, often blocking the content (or reducing it to a fraction of my screen on mobile). I've never once clicked "Yes, track everything", except by accident when tricked into it by deceptive UI (eg. a button designed to look more inviting than its less invasive counterpart). I get…
Well, all those popups are at least showing how much you've been fucked up before by tracking and analytics and other systems in place.
While the outcome isn't optimal (for the moment) we now at least see what's happening.
> EU data protection authorities find that the consent popups that plagued Europeans for years are illegal. Plagued Europeans? Are they seeing additional consent pop ups beyond the ones all the rest of us are tortured with?
The scary thing is that it's the EU doing this. Our national elected governments are not interested in actually fixing things like this because it doesn't immediately win votes, and there is only a limited number of national civil servants so nobody is working on this kind of thing on a national scale. But put those civil servants in a committee in Brussels with not as much short term pressure, and they can work out…
The "EU doing things" is not detached from your national government. In fact all EU legislation is being approved by your national government in the EU Council and the EU commission has to report there. (As well as the EU parliament, however the EU parliament is weak ...) Edit: maybe as addition in the last point in parentheses: The EU parliament is purposely weak, as the EU is a union of states and the member state…
Well said. I'd add that the EU has for decades been a convenient scapegoat for member governments to point to, when "forced" by the EU to do things that needed doing but are politically difficult. Think of all the national champions forced to live by market rules, like flag carriers, telecom monopolies etc.
They will ask the companies to delete the data and take action if there is evidence they didn't, just like how all of GDPR is enforced.
How would they know if they did or didn't, though?
They don't know. But if evidence comes up showing a company didn't then they will take legal action against that company, in which case intent to break the law from the would be crystal clear so they would get maximum fines which are huge for GDPR.
It isn't like laws prevents all crimes, the goal is to reduce illegit data usage, there is nobody who thinks it can ever get completely stamped out.
How would they know if they did or didn't, though?
They don't know. But if evidence comes up showing a company didn't then they will take legal action against that company, in which case intent to break the law from the would be crystal clear so they would get maximum fines which are huge for GDPR. It isn't like laws prevents all crimes, the goal is to reduce illegit data usage, there is nobody who thinks it can ever get completely stamped out.
I'm asking what kind of evidence can exist that proves a negative? Without knowing what was collected how can they prove it was deleted? Doesn't make any sense.
My favorite part is: > All data collected through the TCF must now be deleted by the more than 1,000 companies that pay IAB Europe to use the TCF. This includes Google’s, Amazon’s and Microsoft’s online advertising businesses. It's not just that they need to find new ways to screw users. It's that since they screwed users, they also must lose their ill-gained data. Which will probably be a nice deterrent against them…
I think you meant to use the word lose not loose. I suspect you mean lose the data as in delete it, not loose as in releasing the data to others.
Europe is obviously walking very slowly towards federalism without saying it too loudly.
Germany and France are saying it fairly loudly - they've never hidden their intent to make the EU a federal, unified, state. And with Brexit, the biggest obstacle to that has been removed - the UK never wanted to be part of a Federal EU (because we always considered ourselves part of the British Empire/Commonwealth). There are other EU countries who aren't wildly enthusiastic about a Federal EU too, but it was always…
It's true that the UK was always the biggest opponent, but don't kid yourself that the rest of the EU is on board with federalizing. There is no popular mandate for that whatsoever.
Just look at what happens whenever some EU treaty needs ratifying by national referendum.
They don't know. But if evidence comes up showing a company didn't then they will take legal action against that company, in which case intent to break the law from the would be crystal clear so they would get maximum fines which are huge for GDPR. It isn't like laws prevents all crimes, the goal is to reduce illegit data usage, there is nobody who thinks it can ever get completely stamped out.
I'm asking what kind of evidence can exist that proves a negative? Without knowing what was collected how can they prove it was deleted? Doesn't make any sense.