511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do this trivially in modern browsers: private browsing. I have one "normal" browser window for "persistent cookie" use (like gmail, youtube, etc) and another "private" window for everything else. Cookies are lost anytime a tab closes.
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More regulation , or stronger regulation, as in less wiggle room for businesses, may be a good thing. Case in point: a regulation requiring to disclose the ingredients of food. Too many regulations is almost always a bad thing: numerous pieces of regulation rarely fit together seamlessly. It becomes easier to miss some obscure piece, or to encounter a contradiction, or to find a loophole. The cost of compliance also…
> The cost of compliance also grows, and that disproportionately favors big established players. Not true at all. Most of the harsher regulations only come into effect when the company hits a specific size. Examples from Australia (my country): - Online shops that operate overseas, and import to Australia have to collect sales tax... but only if they make more than $75,000 from Australia per annum. - Social media has…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always felt applying the same rules to everyone was a big problem with GDPR. Not just small business, but even non-profits that just keep a list of people involved with them are subject to the same rules, even if they only use the information internally and do not buy or sell any personal information. Its not just cookies and websites, its any personal information stored electronically.
I just don't see the issue. The GDPR isn't exactly difficult to comply with, nor does it hamper any of the clear successes of the last 25 years outside of the ad industry. What's the benefit of backing out on it? Is this just an effort to make a homegrown surveillance network?
How the hell do you expect everyone else to?
I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…
I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.
Yes, some regulations will result in outcomes most might want and others may result in outcomes most don't want. In both cases, though, everyone not in power has to accept that they gave up some level of free will in hopes that those in charge will always wield that power well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but in…
I've never seen anyone here, or elsewhere, displaying a positive opinion on GDPR without readily acknowledging it, or the way it has turned out and is (not) being policed, has many shortcomings. I have seen people that are fanatical on privacy. Cheers to them!
I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…
You can do this trivially in modern browsers: private browsing. I have one "normal" browser window for "persistent cookie" use (like gmail, youtube, etc) and another "private" window for everything else. Cookies are lost anytime a tab closes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you comply with the current requirements without cookie banners? Why would EU governments use cookie banners if they are just nonsense meant to degrade approval of GDPR?
Don’t track your site visitors. No tracking, no banner. Or respect the now deprecated DNT flag, no banner necessary. Now we get DNT 2.0 and the website owner will once again maliciously comply.
Incredible to see the 180 both from EU and also from the HN sentiment. HN was cheering on as EU went after Big Tech companies, especially Meta. Meta is no perfect company, but the amount of 'please stick it to them' was strong (I reckon that is still a bridge too far for a lot of folks here). Even extreme proponents of big tech villanery in the US (Lina Khan's FTC) is also facing losses (They just lost their monument…
There has been a change in the community here over the last decade, we've lost a lot of the hacker spirit and have a larger proportion of "chancers", people who are only in tech to "get rich quick". The legacy of ZIRP combined with The Social Network marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe has much more fatal startup-killing regulation problems than cookies, however. Who cares about cookies? I am on your site, you are going to plant/collect cookies. These goddamned banners are a solution in search of a problem, and it's yet another hurdle a company of, say, 3 has to go through, for very little reason.
The banner isn't required. They could just not do the things the banner would ask consent for.
People put the banners up because they see other people doing it and it seems safest. That all of this would be so should have been perfectly obviously to whoever contemplated bringing the regulation into existence. Therefore they are either imperceptive or malign.