7 ms·

You are not going to get fined by the EU for that happening. The sites issuing the tracking cookies are the ones in breach, not you. That's a misinterpretation

You are not going to get fined by the EU for that happening. The sites issuing the tracking cookies are the ones in breach, not you. That's a misinterpretation of the law. We can indeed be held responsible for that - it's no different than putting a pixel on ourselves. The burden is on us to know what we are including on pages under GDPR. Most of the people in favor of this law, who claim it's not a big deal unless you have bad intentions, haven't neither read it nor spoken to legal experts about it, and are not in charge of having to comply with it themselves. If they were, most would be singing a different tune. I am not arguing that there wasn't a need for some reasonable limits on tracking. But GDPR is an atrocious law designed to allow the governments of EU countries to reach into the pockets of companies in other parts of the world (especially the US). This serves a dual purpose: to make it easier for EU Internet companies to flourish by sucking down the capital of their foreign competitors, and filling government coffers with money they aren't entitled to. That is how this law will be used, regardless of the well-intentioned hopes of those that support it.

CamperBob2 9y ago
it's no different than putting a pixel on ourselves. The burden is on us to know what we are including on pages under GDPR. IMO, forums that are large enough to be potential GDPR enforcement targets -- which is a vanishingly-small percentage of them -- should be doing their own image rehosting anyway. Image hotlinking has always been a very perilous thing to allow, from both legal and technical standpoints.
- downandout 9y ago
  IMO, forums that are large enough to be potential GDPR enforcement targets GDPR does not discriminate based on the size of the site. My 7 year old niece could start a site, throw Google Analytics code on there, and be fined millions of dollars for not disclosing it if an EU visitor happens to come by. That is the world we now live in.
  - laumars 9y ago
    Nobody is going to fine your 7 year old niece millions of dollars for using GA. At least not unless that was 4% of her little sites income and even then she would have needed to flount the GDPR rules in a number of more serious was as well to receive the maximum penalty. This hysteria of yours is nonsensical.
    - downandout 9y ago
      According to the letter of the law - the only thing that matters - this is exactly what could happen and would be perfectly legal. Are you arguing that fining her would be illegal under GDPR if she failed to disclose it? You’re wrong if you are.
      - laumars 9y ago
        I'm saying there is no precidence in history of any of the EU members imposing a maximum fine against a child for their personal project. You're pulling out the scariest parts of the GDPR and assuming everyone is going to get bettered with it regardless of: * whether they've already been warned or not * their site's size or income * business size or income * nor even the severity of the transgression Thankfully our universe and reality doesn't operate in your worst case fear-mongering. And as I've already stated, you can look back at the history of EU legislation to see evidence to that effect. Posting absurd and unfounded arguments like your previous example really doesn't help the situation one bit.
        downandout 9y ago
        But it would be legal under the GDPR, correct? That’s the problem with this whole argument. Nobody wants to have to depend on the good graces of the EU to “only” fine them “small” amounts (maybe $2 million instead of $10 million, considering her age and all). This law can be used essentially as an EU imposed tax on the entire Internet, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be used that way. By the way, there are zero provisions in the law that require warnings before an action is taken to issue fines. You can keep saying that they’ll issue warnings, that doesn’t make it true.
laumars 9y ago
I call bullshit. You're now just clasping at straws to make your GDPR phobia justified. The EU isn't some evil organisation trying to destroy US businesses. And your argument from authority[1] really isn't going to work here either given the number of errors you've already cited on the topic yourself. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

CamperBob2 9y ago

it's no different than putting a pixel on ourselves. The burden is on us to know what we are including on pages under GDPR. IMO, forums that are large enough to be potential GDPR enforcement targets -- which is a vanishingly-small percentage of them -- should be doing their own image rehosting anyway. Image hotlinking has always been a very perilous thing to allow, from both legal and technical standpoints.

downandout 9y ago
IMO, forums that are large enough to be potential GDPR enforcement targets GDPR does not discriminate based on the size of the site. My 7 year old niece could start a site, throw Google Analytics code on there, and be fined millions of dollars for not disclosing it if an EU visitor happens to come by. That is the world we now live in.
- laumars 9y ago
  Nobody is going to fine your 7 year old niece millions of dollars for using GA. At least not unless that was 4% of her little sites income and even then she would have needed to flount the GDPR rules in a number of more serious was as well to receive the maximum penalty. This hysteria of yours is nonsensical.
  - downandout 9y ago
    According to the letter of the law - the only thing that matters - this is exactly what could happen and would be perfectly legal. Are you arguing that fining her would be illegal under GDPR if she failed to disclose it? You’re wrong if you are.
    - laumars 9y ago
      I'm saying there is no precidence in history of any of the EU members imposing a maximum fine against a child for their personal project. You're pulling out the scariest parts of the GDPR and assuming everyone is going to get bettered with it regardless of: * whether they've already been warned or not * their site's size or income * business size or income * nor even the severity of the transgression Thankfully our universe and reality doesn't operate in your worst case fear-mongering. And as I've already stated, you can look back at the history of EU legislation to see evidence to that effect. Posting absurd and unfounded arguments like your previous example really doesn't help the situation one bit.
      - downandout 9y ago
        But it would be legal under the GDPR, correct? That’s the problem with this whole argument. Nobody wants to have to depend on the good graces of the EU to “only” fine them “small” amounts (maybe $2 million instead of $10 million, considering her age and all). This law can be used essentially as an EU imposed tax on the entire Internet, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be used that way. By the way, there are zero provisions in the law that require warnings before an action is taken to issue fines. You can keep saying that they’ll issue warnings, that doesn’t make it true.

laumars 9y ago

I call bullshit. You're now just clasping at straws to make your GDPR phobia justified. The EU isn't some evil organisation trying to destroy US businesses. And your argument from authority[1] really isn't going to work here either given the number of errors you've already cited on the topic yourself. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority