Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Implications of Global Privacy Control

developer.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#31

Post by luckylion »

jeroenhd wrote: post #15
onli wrote: post #7

The article ignores that the DNT header already had some regulatory backing, as in court decisions saying it ought to be respected. https://www.datev-magazin.de/nachrichten-steuern-recht/recht... references such a decision against LinkedIn. Instead of using that, this new proposal seems to be exactly the same thing, just with more work for website hosters (having to add nonsensical files to /well_known/) and claims t…

DNT failed because advertising and online stalking companies refused to abide by it when browsers enabled it by default. The GPC spec tries to work around this by having the spec disable the feature by default. This new spec is necessary because American legislation requires opt-out signals not to be the browser default. That means DNT, as browsers used it, is not legally an opt-out signal, because browsers default t…

Wasn't this just microsoft back in the day that enabled it by default, and they were already a small player at that point (Chrome was the leader and even Firefox had more market-share back then iirc).

In other words: "browsers" didn't make it the default, one small browser did.

And so if _any_ browser, whatever tiny percentage they might have of the market, will make this new proposal the default, advertisers can again say "see? totally unreasonable, we won't follow that".

But it being made default by Microsoft was never the problem, ad-companies just didn't care.

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#32

Post by prerok »

JimDabell wrote: post #6

I don’t think this article does a good job of explaining what this achieves. > Web users want to have more autonomy over their data. They want to know who has it, where it's going and why, and they want to be able to consent to how their data moves between parties. > It's up to the developer/business to decide how to treat the signal, for example, removing the user's details from third-party tracking or marketing, fo…

What I think they will do is just prevent you from registering? You want to register? Disable the flag.

The same as with the "do not accept". If you do not, they will nag you endlessly until you finally do allow the cookies.

I mean, we just can't win :(

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#36

Post by whatshisface »

throw10920 wrote: post #27
whatshisface wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an extension of copyright, which already regulates the entire internet. You should have the copyright over your mouse clicks, plus 100 years after the death of the author.

How is GPC an extension of copyright?

Laws for GPC are an extension of copyright, that prevents companies from selling works that (in theory) belong to us.

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#37

Post by [deleted] »

jeroenhd wrote: post #15
onli wrote: post #7

The article ignores that the DNT header already had some regulatory backing, as in court decisions saying it ought to be respected. https://www.datev-magazin.de/nachrichten-steuern-recht/recht... references such a decision against LinkedIn. Instead of using that, this new proposal seems to be exactly the same thing, just with more work for website hosters (having to add nonsensical files to /well_known/) and claims t…

DNT failed because advertising and online stalking companies refused to abide by it when browsers enabled it by default. The GPC spec tries to work around this by having the spec disable the feature by default. This new spec is necessary because American legislation requires opt-out signals not to be the browser default. That means DNT, as browsers used it, is not legally an opt-out signal, because browsers default t…

[deleted]

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#38

Post by JimDabell »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #33

For a while now I have been adding a "sec-gpc: 1" header in the forward proxy (client/browser agnostic). Thus, at least one person is using it.

Unfortunately because this is rare, it’s a strong signal for fingerprinting and helps people track you without your consent.

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#39

Post by IshKebab »

roenxi wrote: post #4

> The main problem with DNT was the lack of legal and regulatory backing it received. Website owners could decide if they'd observe the DNT signal and there were no legal repercussions if they chose not to. This is where GPC is different. This sounds like an attempt to regulate the entire internet.

It's no more regulation than GDPR. They're just trying to make GDPR less insanely annoying.

But given the EU's track record I give this a 0.1% chance of success.

Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control

#40

Post by joker99 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #15
onli wrote: post #7

The article ignores that the DNT header already had some regulatory backing, as in court decisions saying it ought to be respected. https://www.datev-magazin.de/nachrichten-steuern-recht/recht... references such a decision against LinkedIn. Instead of using that, this new proposal seems to be exactly the same thing, just with more work for website hosters (having to add nonsensical files to /well_known/) and claims t…

DNT failed because advertising and online stalking companies refused to abide by it when browsers enabled it by default. The GPC spec tries to work around this by having the spec disable the feature by default. This new spec is necessary because American legislation requires opt-out signals not to be the browser default. That means DNT, as browsers used it, is not legally an opt-out signal, because browsers default t…

There are dozens of ways how browser devs could make it default, without making it default - by way of malicious compliance. Example: The first time the browser is opened, display a big fat page asking "DO YOU WANT TO BE TRACKED & SURVEILLED ON THE INTERNET??? NO (highlight in nice colour) / YES (add dark pattern here) / learn more (in tiny font)". Pretty sure most people would click "NO". Every couple of weeks it could pop up again with a similarly phrased question "ARE YOU SURE YOU STILL DON'T WANT TO BE TRACKED?" but this time with a nice UI element where the user can specify that the answer to this rhetorical question will stay the same for the next n days/months/years/decades/centuries/millenia.
Post reply on HN