3 ms·

IMHO GDPR has been (as of yet at least) a net loss to society. It hasn't, and probably never will, change the status quo of the biggest data hoggers (Facebook,

IMHO GDPR has been (as of yet at least) a net loss to society. It hasn't, and probably never will, change the status quo of the biggest data hoggers (Facebook, Google et.al). It have increased my annoyance on the web with even more crap interruptions about cookies etc. It has increased administration in so many places in our society where data is collected in totally non-harmful ways with no real functioning opt-out, like phone numbers in kids football associations or contact info for parents in schools etc. Remember that even data stored on papers are covered by GDPR. I think my gripe is that organisations becoming "GDPR compliant" mainly has created systems for collecting consent or focusing on which cloud platform to not use, rather than creating any real change by e.g not using systems with piss poor security to begin with. Almost like if we created regulation around banning bad roads, and all that happened was that people had to start signing papers saying they accepted the risk of bad roads. But I guess it will take some time to see real change, hopefully it will come someday.

simion314 7y ago
>Almost like if we created regulation around banning bad roads, and all that happened was that people had to start signing papers saying they accepted the risk of bad roads. Really?, did you not see the popups with the giant list of "partners" that have access to your data, you need to click on the show details button but now you can see the shit, where in your road example people would not see the wholes in the road. I am fine with even more transparency.
- filleokus 7y ago
  I mean it's nice that it's transparent and even opt-out. But would be interesting to see the stats of how many people click the details-link on pages like https://www.elle.com https://www.elle.com or even http://techcrunch.com http://techcrunch.com. My hunch is that its way less than 0.01%. Imho it would been as effective, and much nicer, if they could just assume consent and have a setting accessible via the footer. The small small percentage of people caring about it enough to be bothered would find it as easily, and the rest could just go about their day as before.
  - simion314 7y ago
    You only click Accept once and you never see that popup again on that website. Do you also dislike that all emails have now one paragraph on how to unsubscribe and should be a small link hidden somewhere in the footer?
    - filleokus 7y ago
      Yes, but I think I have clicked on at least 10 accept/close/ignore/okay buttons today. As I have almost every day, it's a never ending battle. Multiple machines, mobile devices, cookies do sometimes expire (ironically), I might clear my cookies etc. Further, the cost of one paragraph in flowing text is quite different to blocking modals or boxes going along with your scrolling blocking large portions of the screen. Why not toss in a 100 page EULA on every page while we're at it? I strongly believe that the effective outcome (i.e how "much" people are tracked on the web) would be identical if GDPR had a provision that allowed sites to a) track as before by default and b) provide opt-out and transparency via a footer link, similar to German laws about Impressum. Most people won't opt-out, nor read details, but all people have to click accept all the damn time.
    - searchableguy 7y ago
      I would argue that those buttons train consumers for worse in the future. Next time it will be a button that says we retain access to your mind while you are using this service and all the consumers will just agree like they did before. It's as flawed as false sense of security or all tos are legally enforceable click check mark buttons. They aren't. Stop trying to pretend they are and cause a chilling effect in people. It's social_manipulation! So yeah I absolutely hate that banner. it's terrible.
      - simion314 7y ago
        >Next time it will be a button that says we retain access to your mind while you are using this service and all the consumers will just agree like they did before. This is not true for all users, some users will always click on the big blue button and the problem is not GRPR but shit designers, like PayPal is pushing me into some new thing with a page with a giant blue button and a super small "No now" link, shit companies will always be shit , they will always screw you but this time GRPR forces them to be transparent on how bad are they screwing you. The popups are annying but you know what, some users are deciding to click NO, and go to a different web page. So if news website A has annoying popups and shit design with tons of ads users will find eventually the website with less ads and popups or will install an extension that block all the tracking and ads. So if the GDPR popup will convince some people to install ad blocking to block the popup and the tracking then is great. Power users like myself are running with JS off and white-listing good websites to allow JS. If some link shared here is not opening then I just read something else.

simion314 7y ago

>Almost like if we created regulation around banning bad roads, and all that happened was that people had to start signing papers saying they accepted the risk of bad roads. Really?, did you not see the popups with the giant list of "partners" that have access to your data, you need to click on the show details button but now you can see the shit, where in your road example people would not see the wholes in the road. I am fine with even more transparency.

filleokus 7y ago
I mean it's nice that it's transparent and even opt-out. But would be interesting to see the stats of how many people click the details-link on pages like https://www.elle.com https://www.elle.com or even http://techcrunch.com http://techcrunch.com. My hunch is that its way less than 0.01%. Imho it would been as effective, and much nicer, if they could just assume consent and have a setting accessible via the footer. The small small percentage of people caring about it enough to be bothered would find it as easily, and the rest could just go about their day as before.
- simion314 7y ago
  You only click Accept once and you never see that popup again on that website. Do you also dislike that all emails have now one paragraph on how to unsubscribe and should be a small link hidden somewhere in the footer?
  - filleokus 7y ago
    Yes, but I think I have clicked on at least 10 accept/close/ignore/okay buttons today. As I have almost every day, it's a never ending battle. Multiple machines, mobile devices, cookies do sometimes expire (ironically), I might clear my cookies etc. Further, the cost of one paragraph in flowing text is quite different to blocking modals or boxes going along with your scrolling blocking large portions of the screen. Why not toss in a 100 page EULA on every page while we're at it? I strongly believe that the effective outcome (i.e how "much" people are tracked on the web) would be identical if GDPR had a provision that allowed sites to a) track as before by default and b) provide opt-out and transparency via a footer link, similar to German laws about Impressum. Most people won't opt-out, nor read details, but all people have to click accept all the damn time.
  - searchableguy 7y ago
    I would argue that those buttons train consumers for worse in the future. Next time it will be a button that says we retain access to your mind while you are using this service and all the consumers will just agree like they did before. It's as flawed as false sense of security or all tos are legally enforceable click check mark buttons. They aren't. Stop trying to pretend they are and cause a chilling effect in people. It's social_manipulation! So yeah I absolutely hate that banner. it's terrible.
    - simion314 7y ago
      >Next time it will be a button that says we retain access to your mind while you are using this service and all the consumers will just agree like they did before. This is not true for all users, some users will always click on the big blue button and the problem is not GRPR but shit designers, like PayPal is pushing me into some new thing with a page with a giant blue button and a super small "No now" link, shit companies will always be shit , they will always screw you but this time GRPR forces them to be transparent on how bad are they screwing you. The popups are annying but you know what, some users are deciding to click NO, and go to a different web page. So if news website A has annoying popups and shit design with tons of ads users will find eventually the website with less ads and popups or will install an extension that block all the tracking and ads. So if the GDPR popup will convince some people to install ad blocking to block the popup and the tracking then is great. Power users like myself are running with JS off and white-listing good websites to allow JS. If some link shared here is not opening then I just read something else.