4 ms·

A browser setting replacing the popups is part of the new EU ePrivacy Regulation, which is at the moment still being discussed. I hope it gets finalized soon, b

A browser setting replacing the popups is part of the new EU ePrivacy Regulation, which is at the moment still being discussed. I hope it gets finalized soon, because there's a number of improvements in there. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-eprivacy-regulation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/proposal-epriv...

kule 6y ago
Thank god, I never understood the EU directives that didn’t consider that by making sure things were implemented at a browser level it would cause an order of magnitude less work for web developers/site owners and ensure a consistent experience for end users.
- dom96 6y ago
  It boggles my mind why they didn't think of doing this in the first place. I've been annoyed by the stupid cookie law since it became a law, it's ridiculous to have every single website implement it differently when the darn browsers can just implement it.
  - Deukhoofd 6y ago
    The cookie law is 18 years old, browsers have changed quite a bit since then, as has legislative understanding of the tech field.
    - Kalium 6y ago
      Having read through GDPR, I got the distinct impression that nobody involved in writing it really understood the technologies involved. There's a lot of handwaving about "reasonable measures" whenever they run into ignorance that's absent in the many chapters about inter-government protocols.
      - mqus 6y ago
        GDPR was explicitly designed to be "general". Specifying website behaviour is a bit specific for a regulation that wants to regulate privacy at a whole (in virtual and reallife interactions). Of course that also means that the regulation is quite lacking when it comes to specifics but that wasn't its goal. The goal was to be a fallback-law which regulates everything that is not explicitly regulated otherwise. What you want is the ePrivacy Directive which "introduced" the cookie banners many years ago and its updated version which is (still) not ready.
livre 6y ago
What makes that different than the failed do not track header?
- jchook 6y ago
  The DNT header must be honored by the remote service, similar to robots.txt. Since the browser itself stores the cookies, it has the absolute authority to stop them.
  - livre 6y ago
    So is this just going to be a different/easier way to configure per site cookies?
- Deukhoofd 6y ago
  Actual legal backing.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Has anyone been successfully sued/fined/punished under GDPR in a meaningful way? Clearly TC still gets away with this nonsense.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices Google, $50M; Marriott International, £99M; British Airways, £183M; 1&1 €9.5M; etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jka 6y ago
Yep, let's hope that becomes true - the last time I looked into[1] the situation, it seemed that the latest drafts have moved the settings back out of the browser. I contacted my MEP at the time about this, and please do the same if you can voice your support for simpler, genuinely user-friendly and consent-respecting settings. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283
- Deukhoofd 6y ago
  It's still there, page 27. They just refer to the browser as software providers, which is probably better, as it now covers internet software that is not technically a browser.
  - jka 6y ago
    It seems ambiguous to me - my concern/question is whether the definition of 'software settings' could include the content of a web page itself. That could lead us back to the current situation where consent dialogs are designed by advertising networks, and result in user consent fatigue.

kule 6y ago

Thank god, I never understood the EU directives that didn’t consider that by making sure things were implemented at a browser level it would cause an order of magnitude less work for web developers/site owners and ensure a consistent experience for end users.

dom96 6y ago
It boggles my mind why they didn't think of doing this in the first place. I've been annoyed by the stupid cookie law since it became a law, it's ridiculous to have every single website implement it differently when the darn browsers can just implement it.
- Deukhoofd 6y ago
  The cookie law is 18 years old, browsers have changed quite a bit since then, as has legislative understanding of the tech field.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    Having read through GDPR, I got the distinct impression that nobody involved in writing it really understood the technologies involved. There's a lot of handwaving about "reasonable measures" whenever they run into ignorance that's absent in the many chapters about inter-government protocols.
    - mqus 6y ago
      GDPR was explicitly designed to be "general". Specifying website behaviour is a bit specific for a regulation that wants to regulate privacy at a whole (in virtual and reallife interactions). Of course that also means that the regulation is quite lacking when it comes to specifics but that wasn't its goal. The goal was to be a fallback-law which regulates everything that is not explicitly regulated otherwise. What you want is the ePrivacy Directive which "introduced" the cookie banners many years ago and its updated version which is (still) not ready.

livre 6y ago

What makes that different than the failed do not track header?

jchook 6y ago
The DNT header must be honored by the remote service, similar to robots.txt. Since the browser itself stores the cookies, it has the absolute authority to stop them.
- livre 6y ago
  So is this just going to be a different/easier way to configure per site cookies?
Deukhoofd 6y ago
Actual legal backing.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Has anyone been successfully sued/fined/punished under GDPR in a meaningful way? Clearly TC still gets away with this nonsense.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices Google, $50M; Marriott International, £99M; British Airways, £183M; 1&1 €9.5M; etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jka 6y ago

Yep, let's hope that becomes true - the last time I looked into[1] the situation, it seemed that the latest drafts have moved the settings back out of the browser. I contacted my MEP at the time about this, and please do the same if you can voice your support for simpler, genuinely user-friendly and consent-respecting settings. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21914283

Deukhoofd 6y ago
It's still there, page 27. They just refer to the browser as software providers, which is probably better, as it now covers internet software that is not technically a browser.
- jka 6y ago
  It seems ambiguous to me - my concern/question is whether the definition of 'software settings' could include the content of a web page itself. That could lead us back to the current situation where consent dialogs are designed by advertising networks, and result in user consent fatigue.