6 ms·

I want to explicitly opt-in, not to go through hassle to opt-out at every shitty website of every vendor. You want to sell my purchase/demographics data? No pr

I want to explicitly opt-in, not to go through hassle to opt-out at every shitty website of every vendor. You want to sell my purchase/demographics data? No problem. Just let me know how much or what i'll get for it and i'll decide if it worth to opt-in. By default - no one should be able to share my data with anyone.

slig 7y ago
Any reason why this could not be implemented right in the browser? If the browser sends the specific header, either allowing it or disabling it, the server doesn't need to show the opt-in/out nag.
- JonathonW 7y ago
  They tried that with Do Not Track. It just became another bit of potentially identifying data for browser fingerprinting (and tracking).
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Only because compliance with it was voluntary. There's no reason a government like California couldn't require honoring DNT (within their jurisdiction, of course, as with the CCPA) and provide penalties for violations.
- rebelde 7y ago
  My phone has Google Fi VPN. This VPN doesn't do everything, but websites now think I'm in Mountain View. I am nowhere close. Is a VPN a better solution? I understand that Google might not be the best company to trust here, but they did give it to me for free and it is working fine.
ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
>You want to sell my purchase/demographics data? No problem. Just let me know how much or what i'll get for it and i'll decide if it worth to opt-in. It should be allowed to be the cost of admission to the site. If you don't like that the advertising and your own metadata allows you to view the site for free, you could just not visit (or when you click no to consent, they would block you). Websites shouldn't be required to provide you content for free.
- ppseafield 7y ago
  Maybe for some or even most sites this makes sense. But Walmart, Home Depot, etc., from the article are businesses open to the public, and as such operate under laws governing public businesses. Few would put up with Walmart making them sign a contract letting them sell their personal demographic information in order to enter a public store (except if every public business did this, removing the choice - currently how most of the internet works). Why should websites for public businesses be different? You may say that credit and debit cards do this already (and they do), but you can still pay cash in public stores. Of course they can track you with your phone's bluetooth identifiers, facial recognition, etc., but why as a society should we allow public businesses to require this? Once we permit one place to do it, others will follow.
  - fastest963 7y ago
    > Few would put up with Walmart making them sign a contract letting them sell their personal demographic information in order to enter a public store What about Costco, BJ's, etc who require a membership to enter the store and (probably) are selling the data they get from your membership?
    - blackearl 7y ago
      You don't need a membership to enter. Specifically, the Costco near me has a liquor store inside but can't legally have it be part of the store. It's a separate store within Costco, and they won't stop you from walking in, buying liquor, and leaving. You can even grab a cheap hot dog on the way
      - ab_testing 7y ago
        Costco does not do that because of the goodness of their heart. They do that because state laws mandate liquor stores to allow anyone to buy liquor without being part of a club or membership. You can thank your state's liquor lobby for that.
kick 7y ago
By Clicking Here You Agree to Accept Cookies [yes] [leave] Hi! The E.U. makes us put up warnings for cookies. These are silly things that every service on the WWW uses: don't worry, little user, we're just doing what everyone else does! [accept] [go away] By Visiting This Website, You Agree to Have Cookies Placed on Your Device. [MORE INFORMATION]
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Yes, this is the story the websites like to tell. Too bad it's a farce.
  - kick 7y ago
    "By moving your mouse on this website, you signal contentment with your data being processed according to our policies." It's very easy to extend to whatever you'd like. Consent on the internet is a farce.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I don't know I'd call it a "farce;" it pretty closely mirrors my experience browsing the World Wide Web these days. EU added a hell of an inefficiency to the WWW by making user education the responsibility of every site with no way for a user to pre-emptively signal "Yeah, I get it, and I don't care."
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      The farce is saying that the popup is needed "because we use cookies". It's because you're using cookies to track users, their PII and sell information and ads. The EU didn't add any inefficiencies, rather, it's forcing the data abuse by websites to come to light. If you use cookies only for login/session tracking then guess what, no popup is needed. Also if the user expressed their consent (or lack of) once, then the popup is not needed anymore (google/fb/etc do exactly that).
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
Despegar 7y ago
CCPA is no doubt inferior to GDPR for that very reason. But to keep things in perspective, CCPA was only passed as a compromise because Alastair Mactaggart, a rich real estate developer, forced their hand by threatening to make it a ballot initiative. It's unlikely that California would have led on this issue without the threat of a referendum. Fortunately he's back at it again with a new ballot initiative, which he's funding himself, to improve on CCPA [1]: >Mr. Mactaggart said his 2020 state ballot initiative, among other things, would create a state enforcement agency, limit targeted advertisements based on geolocation and add items covered by the “negligent data breach” section, which would allow consumers to pursue legal action in more instances of a hack. >Most significantly, Mr. Mactaggart said, his new effort would make it harder to adjust the current law any further. The initiative includes a “purpose and intent” section that requires any amendment to the law to be in the service of protecting consumers’ rights to privacy, a legally binding clause that Mr. Mactaggart said would prevent industry from chipping away at the measure. ... >The lobbying against Mr. Mactaggart’s earlier initiative kept it from the ballot in 2018, and legislators instead passed the privacy law. “It was the right thing to do because there was no guarantee at the ballot box,” Mr. Mactaggart said of his agreement to drop his measure. “Now, it’s different because we have the law.” >Mr. Mactaggart said he would do whatever it takes to pass his initiative next year, including spending millions of his own money. He bankrolled his last campaign almost entirely himself, spending more than $3 million. Mr. Mactaggart will have to collect more than 623,000 signatures for his new initiative to qualify for the ballot. A survey in October by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research of 777 registered voters in California found that most supported Mr. Mactaggart’s initiative. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias-new-privacy-law-already-wants-to-improve-it-11577615401 https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias-new...
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  I'm skeptical MacTaggart is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. But I don't see how this benefits a Real Estate developer. What's his motif for this?
  - scrollaway 7y ago
    Being rich doesn't mean you no longer benefit from having privacy online.
ljm 7y ago
This is how it should be; it’s how GDPR defined it to. Instead, the rules weren’t tight enough to stop the current shitshow we now have. Your explicit opt in is a nice single button click, on a modal that fills the entire screen. It tells you nothing about what happens, it’s just easy. Meanwhile, the rest is hidden away. And you still don’t know if those changes have any effect, especially if the tracking is also done server side. You’ll still get opted into all the emails by default, the needy ones that have to remind you every day that you made an account, and make you log in to disable them (to update their active monthly user count I’m sure). Of course, it’s working that way because companies share your data with so many random third parties that opting in for each one would scare you away. And most of them do similar things, it’s probably different teams or departments insisting on using their own tools. I don’t blame advertising for this per-se, I blame growth hacking too.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >Instead, the rules weren’t tight enough to stop the current shitshow we now have. Your explicit opt in is a nice single button click, on a modal that fills the entire screen. It tells you nothing about what happens, it’s just easy. I wouldn't blame GDPR for any company's deficient consent process. That's just what they believe to be in compliance with GDPR, it may not actually be. Many of these questions are being litigated by privacy activists like Max Schrems.

slig 7y ago

Any reason why this could not be implemented right in the browser? If the browser sends the specific header, either allowing it or disabling it, the server doesn't need to show the opt-in/out nag.

JonathonW 7y ago
They tried that with Do Not Track. It just became another bit of potentially identifying data for browser fingerprinting (and tracking).
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Only because compliance with it was voluntary. There's no reason a government like California couldn't require honoring DNT (within their jurisdiction, of course, as with the CCPA) and provide penalties for violations.
rebelde 7y ago
My phone has Google Fi VPN. This VPN doesn't do everything, but websites now think I'm in Mountain View. I am nowhere close. Is a VPN a better solution? I understand that Google might not be the best company to trust here, but they did give it to me for free and it is working fine.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago

>You want to sell my purchase/demographics data? No problem. Just let me know how much or what i'll get for it and i'll decide if it worth to opt-in. It should be allowed to be the cost of admission to the site. If you don't like that the advertising and your own metadata allows you to view the site for free, you could just not visit (or when you click no to consent, they would block you). Websites shouldn't be required to provide you content for free.

ppseafield 7y ago
Maybe for some or even most sites this makes sense. But Walmart, Home Depot, etc., from the article are businesses open to the public, and as such operate under laws governing public businesses. Few would put up with Walmart making them sign a contract letting them sell their personal demographic information in order to enter a public store (except if every public business did this, removing the choice - currently how most of the internet works). Why should websites for public businesses be different? You may say that credit and debit cards do this already (and they do), but you can still pay cash in public stores. Of course they can track you with your phone's bluetooth identifiers, facial recognition, etc., but why as a society should we allow public businesses to require this? Once we permit one place to do it, others will follow.
- fastest963 7y ago
  > Few would put up with Walmart making them sign a contract letting them sell their personal demographic information in order to enter a public store What about Costco, BJ's, etc who require a membership to enter the store and (probably) are selling the data they get from your membership?
  - blackearl 7y ago
    You don't need a membership to enter. Specifically, the Costco near me has a liquor store inside but can't legally have it be part of the store. It's a separate store within Costco, and they won't stop you from walking in, buying liquor, and leaving. You can even grab a cheap hot dog on the way
    - ab_testing 7y ago
      Costco does not do that because of the goodness of their heart. They do that because state laws mandate liquor stores to allow anyone to buy liquor without being part of a club or membership. You can thank your state's liquor lobby for that.

kick 7y ago

By Clicking Here You Agree to Accept Cookies [yes] [leave] Hi! The E.U. makes us put up warnings for cookies. These are silly things that every service on the WWW uses: don't worry, little user, we're just doing what everyone else does! [accept] [go away] By Visiting This Website, You Agree to Have Cookies Placed on Your Device. [MORE INFORMATION]

raverbashing 7y ago
Yes, this is the story the websites like to tell. Too bad it's a farce.
- kick 7y ago
  "By moving your mouse on this website, you signal contentment with your data being processed according to our policies." It's very easy to extend to whatever you'd like. Consent on the internet is a farce.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I don't know I'd call it a "farce;" it pretty closely mirrors my experience browsing the World Wide Web these days. EU added a hell of an inefficiency to the WWW by making user education the responsibility of every site with no way for a user to pre-emptively signal "Yeah, I get it, and I don't care."
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    The farce is saying that the popup is needed "because we use cookies". It's because you're using cookies to track users, their PII and sell information and ads. The EU didn't add any inefficiencies, rather, it's forcing the data abuse by websites to come to light. If you use cookies only for login/session tracking then guess what, no popup is needed. Also if the user expressed their consent (or lack of) once, then the popup is not needed anymore (google/fb/etc do exactly that).
    - shadowgovt 7y ago

Despegar 7y ago

CCPA is no doubt inferior to GDPR for that very reason. But to keep things in perspective, CCPA was only passed as a compromise because Alastair Mactaggart, a rich real estate developer, forced their hand by threatening to make it a ballot initiative. It's unlikely that California would have led on this issue without the threat of a referendum. Fortunately he's back at it again with a new ballot initiative, which he's funding himself, to improve on CCPA [1]: >Mr. Mactaggart said his 2020 state ballot initiative, among other things, would create a state enforcement agency, limit targeted advertisements based on geolocation and add items covered by the “negligent data breach” section, which would allow consumers to pursue legal action in more instances of a hack. >Most significantly, Mr. Mactaggart said, his new effort would make it harder to adjust the current law any further. The initiative includes a “purpose and intent” section that requires any amendment to the law to be in the service of protecting consumers’ rights to privacy, a legally binding clause that Mr. Mactaggart said would prevent industry from chipping away at the measure. ... >The lobbying against Mr. Mactaggart’s earlier initiative kept it from the ballot in 2018, and legislators instead passed the privacy law. “It was the right thing to do because there was no guarantee at the ballot box,” Mr. Mactaggart said of his agreement to drop his measure. “Now, it’s different because we have the law.” >Mr. Mactaggart said he would do whatever it takes to pass his initiative next year, including spending millions of his own money. He bankrolled his last campaign almost entirely himself, spending more than $3 million. Mr. Mactaggart will have to collect more than 623,000 signatures for his new initiative to qualify for the ballot. A survey in October by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research of 777 registered voters in California found that most supported Mr. Mactaggart’s initiative. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias-new-privacy-law-already-wants-to-improve-it-11577615401 https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias-new...

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
I'm skeptical MacTaggart is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. But I don't see how this benefits a Real Estate developer. What's his motif for this?
- scrollaway 7y ago
  Being rich doesn't mean you no longer benefit from having privacy online.

ljm 7y ago

This is how it should be; it’s how GDPR defined it to. Instead, the rules weren’t tight enough to stop the current shitshow we now have. Your explicit opt in is a nice single button click, on a modal that fills the entire screen. It tells you nothing about what happens, it’s just easy. Meanwhile, the rest is hidden away. And you still don’t know if those changes have any effect, especially if the tracking is also done server side. You’ll still get opted into all the emails by default, the needy ones that have to remind you every day that you made an account, and make you log in to disable them (to update their active monthly user count I’m sure). Of course, it’s working that way because companies share your data with so many random third parties that opting in for each one would scare you away. And most of them do similar things, it’s probably different teams or departments insisting on using their own tools. I don’t blame advertising for this per-se, I blame growth hacking too.

Despegar 7y ago
>Instead, the rules weren’t tight enough to stop the current shitshow we now have. Your explicit opt in is a nice single button click, on a modal that fills the entire screen. It tells you nothing about what happens, it’s just easy. I wouldn't blame GDPR for any company's deficient consent process. That's just what they believe to be in compliance with GDPR, it may not actually be. Many of these questions are being litigated by privacy activists like Max Schrems.