151–158 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there’s some security reasons why. An iCloud id have muliple purposes in the Apple ecosystem. You can use it like an e-mail address or caller/messaging contact id. Now imagine if they will free up your username and later someone else will register it. Or worst, you used that e-mail address to register in some other services.
Well they need not release the Apple-id to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I need to explicitly accept targeted ads from every company that shows targeted ads? Does this mean every website that shows targeted ads, or can a blanket large provider (e.g. Google) get a single consent and apply it to all websites hosting Google ads? This seems like it would give a market advantage to Google, because they have products that people want and can likely get a fair number of people to consent if t…
The blanket version. Google et al neither sell nor (generally) share your data with advertisers. They make the decision on what to show to you and thus, only they need to get your consent once for that express purpose. By the way: it's still a topic of heavy debate how much of this can be done through terms and conditions after all. Disclaimer/source: working for large Google customer, involved in GDPR compliance. Ed…
How about this, what if I own a.com and embed an image from b.com (a completely different organization from me). And then b.com tracks the users' IP addresses, urls, referers, etc. Do I need to get permission for that? I'm not the one doing the tracking. Does b.com need to get permission for that? There's no opportunity for b.com go get permission, the user never is on a website controlled by them, there is never an opportunity to click an accept button for b.com . The user likely has never heard of b.com .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I need to explicitly accept targeted ads from every company that shows targeted ads? Does this mean every website that shows targeted ads, or can a blanket large provider (e.g. Google) get a single consent and apply it to all websites hosting Google ads? This seems like it would give a market advantage to Google, because they have products that people want and can likely get a fair number of people to consent if t…
As far as I know, GDPR disallows “bundled” consent. Google will be obligated to provide all the same services even if it cannot use the data for targeted ads.
And how granular do these consents have to be? Would there be a page with 100 consent boxes, with a top box saying "accept all" for people too lazy to sort through all of the boxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't underestimate how bad bad ads can be. I turned off targeted advertising on my Android phone for a while. The result was that around 50% of ad banners I saw were ultra-spammy strobing things--presumably the only ones that will pay for untargeted ads--making apps with built-in ad banners essentially unusable. I wound up changing back. That may have been the intention. (An Android ad blocker would probably work be…
Recognise that the ad platform itself has an incentive to pump absolute bilge at you. I have an incentive to block that as hard as humanly, or computationally, possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it technically applies - but I doubt it will have any effect . Compare it to hacking across border where there is no extradition . At least until some form of GDPR is rolled into international trade treaties.
If you never set foot onto EU soil, you can safely ignore the Gdpr. You might be blacklisted by EU ISPs though.
On a side note, the cp filter is scary - as the infrastructure implies the existence of censorship infrastructure ready for abuse in the event of a power shift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recognise that the ad platform itself has an incentive to pump absolute bilge at you. I have an incentive to block that as hard as humanly, or computationally, possible.
They have an incentive to give you ads you will click on. If you're not going to click on it, then there's a disincentive to show it to you.
I see parallels to the 3rd class rail (or coach-class air) problem. If you improve the conditions of the lowest service class, nobody upgrades to higher levels of service. So the lowest class is intentionally bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your sentiment but I don't think deleting comments would make sites like these (community driven) appealing. Missing comments creates a big hole to a comment train, look at reddit. Missing/Deleted comments make the whole comment tree below it quite meaningless. HN would invite a lot of trolls with this an would make it really difficult to create a submission archive that makes sense. Now I don't know how…
There's nothing sacred about HN discussions. Privacy is way more important, even a matter of life and death for some.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the EU doesn’t mess around. I don’t see any provisions in the GDPR allowing companies to do that. I guess companies can charge money for services that cost them money, and give you money if you enable certain services.
GDPR doesn't need to reenumerate this. Selling service above cost is already allowed.
Of course, I don't see Facebook actually doing this, but just food for thought.