3 ms·

I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block bas

I'm curious: So what you're saying is that you don't value the ideas put forth in the GDPR, because you want the content so badly that you'll bypass a block based upon it? Because if so, it totally validates their decision to not spend resources on it.

alangpierce 8y ago
Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
- EvilTerran 8y ago
  Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.

alangpierce 8y ago

Copyright issues aside, my impression is that this solution is mostly in the spirit of GDPR. LA Times doesn't want to take the legal risk of being accidentally non-compliant (or doesn't want to go through the effort just yet), and outline.com is willing to act as a "wrapper website" that serves LA Times content while also following all EU rules around cookies. That means people in the EU are able to access the content without losing any privacy rights around cookies. But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.

solarkraft 8y ago
I don't see what "legal worry" there could be if they're not abusing personal data. They could provide a plain-text website (even with ads, since the providers are probably all doing business in the EU) or link to outline.com, which would at least gain them the reputation of somebody having read a good article from them.
EvilTerran 8y ago
Well said. You've elucidated my thinking better than I could. Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to. I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.