3 ms·
> wanting laws to make them stop... It just feels silly and pointless. > The solution (imho) has to come from browser software or w3c. Generally in society wh
by gnode 8y ago
> wanting laws to make them stop... It just feels silly and pointless.
> The solution (imho) has to come from browser software or w3c.
Generally in society when there is a natural motive for one party to wrong another, we use law to mitigate it. Technical solutions make sense, as there are always bad actors; people still lock their doors to deter burglars. But we don't expect to need to wear a suit of armour outside our houses, because highly motivated assailants act undeterred.
Saying the solution rests entirely on the client side invites a kind of arms race, where wrongdoing is fair game.
- netcan 8y agoI'm not saying wrongdoing is fair game (obviously) or that laws are pointless. They just don't work for everything. Laws' side effects can be as important as the straightforward intention. For example, the gdpr reporting requirements for data leaks is a good idea. It's nice that people can know data about them has leaked, but the bigger reason is the side effect... the transparency will improve security. The side effect of consent/permission requirement is an army is of compliance lawyer and vendors. They make newspapers compliant by tweaking paperwork, popups and such... not by actually doing anything that improves privacy.
- gnode 8y ago> They make newspapers compliant [...] That's debatable. Almost nothing actually meets the GDPR's requirements for freely given consent (that non-technically required consent can't be tied to / traded for the service, and is opt in; no pre-ticked boxes.)