4 ms·

Cookie warnings is a bad example as it was widely acknowledged by anyone vaguely techy that they'd got it completely wrong from the start.

ben_jones 9y ago
Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?
- foota 9y ago
  Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Because the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law. The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out. But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations. The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.
    - grabeh 9y ago
      Not so much a loophole but the UK Information Commissioner certainly adopted a more relaxed approach to enforcement of the requirements of the cookie law compared to other countries. And the law required prior informed consent to cookies with opt-out not generally being considered to be valid consent.
    - michalskop 9y ago
      Talking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
- pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
  couldn't you make the argument that the USA showed that Europe has no real power, and militias could easily usurp their authority? you're all idiots.
dx034 9y ago
The difference is that cookie warnings only inform you, they don't offer a choice. The excessive use of personal data is something that most businesses don't need for their core purpose and something that users are certainly worried about (at least in Europe).

ben_jones 9y ago

Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?

foota 9y ago
Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....
- kuschku 9y ago
  Because the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law. The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out. But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations. The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.
  - grabeh 9y ago
    Not so much a loophole but the UK Information Commissioner certainly adopted a more relaxed approach to enforcement of the requirements of the cookie law compared to other countries. And the law required prior informed consent to cookies with opt-out not generally being considered to be valid consent.
  - michalskop 9y ago
    Talking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
couldn't you make the argument that the USA showed that Europe has no real power, and militias could easily usurp their authority? you're all idiots.

dx034 9y ago

The difference is that cookie warnings only inform you, they don't offer a choice. The excessive use of personal data is something that most businesses don't need for their core purpose and something that users are certainly worried about (at least in Europe).