561–570 of 621 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.
I don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.
Of course it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tracking usually happens across websites, meaning the information is shared with third parties outside the people running the website where you accepted the cookies. Knowing your interests, behavior and preferences makes you prone to manipulation. The selection of information shown to you will be crafted such as it maximizes engagement. For example, showing you information that upsets you, in order to get you to reac…
No one in history has ever had an opinion independent of "influence"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We ask more sophistication of drivers to understand the rules of right of way than we would be asking of users to hit Settings -> Privacy and Cookies and read the plain language there. Sorry that you need the government to "help" people in this way, by forcing other people to give them free things.
Are you proposing a licensing scheme to use the internet?
Simple, easy tools are already there, such as the Clear Browsing Data menu item in Chrome, Edge, and Safari. For more complicated intents, the browser settings are no more complicated to navigate than the actual customization UI in the CMPs, anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you proposing a licensing scheme to use the internet?
No, I'm just saying that it's okay to burden humans with the responsibility to learn a few basic ideas about how to operate their own computers if they want to control their data privacy. Simple, easy tools are already there, such as the Clear Browsing Data menu item in Chrome, Edge, and Safari. For more complicated intents, the browser settings are no more complicated to navigate than the actual customization UI in…
Clearing browser data is anything but easy for people who aren't certain what is "browser data". Is this going to delete all my google sheets? Those are in the browser. And it's not a bad question, some apps actually use IndexedDB or whatever to store user data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is literally ”I didn’t read the contract”. Let me guess you don’t have a law degree in Swedish law and you are just making statements on every legal system in the whole world? Just read avtalslagen paragraf 30. It says just that. And it is different from paragraf 36.
I read it. The law expressed therein appears to be consistent with typical contract law in the West, including the UK (from which US law is derived) and other European countries. I don't see any major differences. (Also, I'm not sure why you brought up paragraph 30 as that is about fraudulent inducement.) See also https://svjt.se/svjt/1959/497 "En person borde sålunda bli bunden av ordalagen i det dokument han undert…
You are referring to a 60 year article and the sentence you highlighted is NOT his opinion on the old contract law (the contract law currently in effect is from 2020) but rather he is explaining the opinion on German law from another person.
Of course you as an American sees no difference between contract law in continental European law and common law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it. The law expressed therein appears to be consistent with typical contract law in the West, including the UK (from which US law is derived) and other European countries. I don't see any major differences. (Also, I'm not sure why you brought up paragraph 30 as that is about fraudulent inducement.) See also https://svjt.se/svjt/1959/497 "En person borde sålunda bli bunden av ordalagen i det dokument han undert…
No, I have a Swedish law degree and you have totally misunderstood article 30 if you claim it is about unjust contracts. You are mixing it up with art 36. You are referring to a 60 year article and the sentence you highlighted is NOT his opinion on the old contract law (the contract law currently in effect is from 2020) but rather he is explaining the opinion on German law from another person. Of course you as an Ame…
Enligt 30 § avtalslagen kan en rättshandling inte göras gällande om den, gentemot vilken en rättshandling företagits, framkallat rättshandlingen genom svikligt förledande eller bort inse att den som företog rättshandlingen blivit svikligen förledd av någon annan. Det finns en presumtion för att det svikliga förfarandet har framkallat rättshandlingen, om omständigheter som svikligen uppgetts eller förtigits kan antas vara av betydelse för rättshandlingen.
bad Google Translate:
According to Section 30 of the Contracts Act, a legal act cannot be enforced if the party against whom the legal act was performed caused the legal act by fraudulent misrepresentation or Should have realized that the party performing the legal act had been fraudulently misled by someone else. There is a presumption that the fraudulent misrepresentation has caused the legal act if circumstances that were fraudulently stated or omitted can be assumed to be of significance for the legal act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're both using different meanings of "opt-out" Not legal: you have to click a button to be opted out, otherwise you're opted in. (Opt-out as a verb) Legal: you are opted out by default (opt-out as an adjective describing the default situation)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-out https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opt-in You've muddled the definitions again. "opt" signifies an action by the user. If I am "in a group" by default, then I can take an action to "opt out", requesting to be removed from the list. If I am not initially joined to the group, then I can take an action to "opt in" and be added to the list. There is no such thing as "opt by default". Th…
> GDPR says that opt-out is the default
do you see how these relate? The second one quite explicitly talks about being opted out by default, i.e. what most of us call opt-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part says legitimate interest doesn't apply to cookies?
"legitimate interest" is legal basis in GDPR. ePD (which governs access to cookies) does not have such legal basis, only consent and the two exceptions. Other processing (like after value is read) can happen under GDPR if the data is personal data.
Note that you don't comply with EU directives anyway - you comply with actual laws of actual countries, and the EU process helps them to mostly agree with each other. Did countries replace their ePD-based laws with GDPR-based laws? My understanding is they did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I have a Swedish law degree and you have totally misunderstood article 30 if you claim it is about unjust contracts. You are mixing it up with art 36. You are referring to a 60 year article and the sentence you highlighted is NOT his opinion on the old contract law (the contract law currently in effect is from 2020) but rather he is explaining the opinion on German law from another person. Of course you as an Ame…
This is what the Swedish Supreme Court said recently on the paragraph. Enligt 30 § avtalslagen kan en rättshandling inte göras gällande om den, gentemot vilken en rättshandling företagits, framkallat rättshandlingen genom svikligt förledande eller bort inse att den som företog rättshandlingen blivit svikligen förledd av någon annan. Det finns en presumtion för att det svikliga förfarandet har framkallat rättshandling…
Fraudulent inducement is not about unjust terms in contracts. The elements of fraudulent inducement in the US are:
1. The other party falsely represented something to you regarding a material fact;
2. They knew that it was false;
3. They made the representation in order to induce you to rely on it;
4. You did actually rely on it;
5. You did not know that it was false; and
6. You sustained damages as a result.
> According to Section 30 of the Contracts Act, a legal act cannot be enforced if the party against whom the legal act was performed caused the legal act by fraudulent misrepresentation.
OK. We have the same law. But I don't understand what this has to do with an "I didn't read the contract" defense. Since you possess a Swedish law degree, can you cite a single case wherein a party to a contract escaped their duty to perform merely because they didn't read the contract? Assume no fraud, clear language, no misrepresentation, no unconscionable/unlawful terms, both parties are competent to enter a contract, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just a strawman, these aren't equivalent and I'm not going to waste time pretending they are. Might as well just compare ads to nuclear weapons at this point.
There are enough libertarians out there that believe that the government should not be involved in food safety inspections to establish that regulations like this ARE on a related spectrum. Do you have a right to trust that food you buy is safe or should you get to choose to buy raw milk? Do you have a right to consume online services while retaining privacy? It's a debate society constantly has, and the EU electorat…
This is the part I don't understand. I'm actually all for regulations like being able to demand they delete the saved data they have on you, restrictions on transferring data to the control of third parties without disclosure/permission, etc.
But if your definition of "privacy" extends to not wanting cookies to work like they were designed to, why can't it be your responsibility to use a browser (a User-Agent) that carries out your intentions?
With services that are mandatory for all of us to use (e.g. government), I can see how being stringent makes sense because the users have no choice. But I can't understand applying the same burdensome requirements to things that people can simply choose to use or not use, such as a restaurant or some random guy's blog. I could be convinced that large platforms (tough to define properly, but things like Amazon, Uber or Meta) may be subjected to additional rules, but the tough rules being applied to even tiny one-person startups does nothing but advantage the giant platforms who have hundreds of lawyers and can devote entire dev teams to building complicated compliance features.