Implications of Global Privacy Control
developer.mozilla.org
Implications of Global Privacy Control
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#2Any takes on this from someone who knows about it?
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#3in a era when google and openai ask to circumvent copyrights, what’s the point?
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#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.
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#5in a era when google and openai ask to circumvent copyrights, what’s the point?
The point is you’d have one browser setting that would make all the obnoxious cookie consent pops disappear. Making laws is one thing, enforcing them is another, however.
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#6I 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, following a similar procedure as to when users opt out of sharing data for marketing purposes. If in CCPA jurisdiction, the signal must be observed to avoid legal repercussions.
Okay, so assuming a user has this enabled in their browser settings, and they register on a website. They tick the box that says “Add me to your mailing list”.
Common sense would indicate that ticking of the box overrides the browser setting. So I can share their details with my mail service provider. So by default opt-out and asking for their permission to opt-in is compatible with this setting, right?
Except now apply that logic to the mess of “we respect your privacy, click here to allow sharing your data with our eleventy bajillion trusted partners” popups on so many websites. So, again, by default opt-out and asking for their permission to opt-in. So this setting does absolutely nothing to stem that tide? What’s the point of it then?
Also, how does this tell the user “who has it, where it's going and why”? All I see is a boolean flag.
> At the time of writing, the Attorney General for California has recommended observation of GPC to comply with CCPA. There are also intentions to work with the European Union's GDPR
By default opt-out and asking for their permission is already required by the GDPR, so what is being worked on here exactly?
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#7The 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 that this time, the regulatory backing will be good enough. Bullshit. They could have just tried to enforce the DNT header now, with the new regulations and the old case law. Instead they ripped it out of Firefox.
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#8> 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.
So what do you refer to all the other stuff that is accepted as "the internet" but is not websites?
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#9in a era when google and openai ask to circumvent copyrights, what’s the point?
The point is you’d have one browser setting that would make all the obnoxious cookie consent pops disappear. Making laws is one thing, enforcing them is another, however.
I think cookie consent is a different story. GPC would mean:
"Under the GDPR, the intent of the GPC signal is to convey a general request that data controllers limit the sale or sharing of the user's personal data to other data controllers".
It doesn't preclude a website from storing cookies, and therefore doesn't relieve it from the obligation (at least in the EU) to show an obnoxious popup
Re: Implications of Global Privacy Control
#10> 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.
Ideally it would be an attempt to regulate more than that. If I've set a flag that indicates a preference about the use of my personal information that I have some legal right to demand, I want it enforced. You don't get to ignore my request because internet.