5 ms·

GDPR is a massive inconvenience. in theory it sounds good, in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. there should have been more

GDPR is a massive inconvenience. in theory it sounds good, in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. there should have been more debate around this set of rules not just a diktat top down that is disconnected from reality.

Nursie 6y ago
> in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. That's because those sites want to track you, for profit, and they usually want to confuse you into agreeing in the weakest way possible. These popups are entirely unnecessary, if sites would just stop tracking you and allowing third parties to track you.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >These popups are entirely unnecessary, if sites would just stop tracking you and allowing third parties to track you. Yeah, who needs money to operate a service anyway. Can't they just be happy that I'm even willing to consume their content?! These websites do that so that they can provide the website in the first place. If they didn't then there would be no website for you to complain about.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > If they didn't then there would be no website for you to complain about. Oh no, my business model of selling everything I can glean about you in exchange for some recycled 'content' is under threat! Oh noes! If you can't operate without tracking and you can't legitimately and consensually persuade people to participate in it without resorting to dark patterns and hiding controls, your business is no longer viable, sorry. Find a new model or make way for someone else that can.
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    You are entirely free to show adds and to charge money. The popups are only necessary if you additionally want to spy on users.
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      And by "spy on users" you mean "show ads that might at least remotely be relevant to the user"? The world is a lot bigger than the US. If there was no targeting of any kind then half of the ads you'd see would be in languages you can't even understand. Hell, that's the situation right now if you live in certain places in the world and this is with some tracking!
      - Nursie 6y ago
        > If there was no targeting of any kind then half of the ads you'd see would be in languages you can't even understand. Given I have zero interest in seeing ads in the first place, this sounds like a 'you' problem. I'm not trying to be snarky here - this idea that relevant ads are important to users seems to be some sort of industry delusion. Why should I care if the people trying to sell me stuff while I read a news article are less able to target me? The ads are already an attention-demanding annoyance, it hardly matters what they're for.
unionpivo 6y ago
Nah its better push out something out, and then amend it over time, than spend 20 years discussing it and bikeshedding.
- pamperson 6y ago
  it would be great but i doubt it will be revised any time soon, the eu is very stiff.
  - di4na 6y ago
    There are already 2 text coming that significantly change it. Mostly to make it more protective. Search for "ePrivacy". On top of that, there is a wide range given to the DPA which they are using. It is just that the EU agencies prefer to try to educate first before hitting companies hard, which makes sense. In practice, if it had not been for Covid, the UK DPA would have killed multiple adtech company during the Summer. They had announced having planned it earlier this year.
icebraining 6y ago
> in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. The vast majority of those aren't GDPR-compliant, they're just attempts at paying lip-service while maintaining the old ways, and they're usually illegal.
sveme 6y ago
You misunderstand policy making. A lawmaker is not (and should not be) interested in providing a way of how to implement things, but how things should be, they are only providing the normative side. The executive and judicative branch of the state then specifies how things should be implemented. Most GDPR implementations that are so annoying are actually wrong.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  I agree that this is how most legislation does work: dream up something that would be great and ignore the facts on the ground and live with a predictable shitshow of implementations. To me it's a stretch to say legislation ought to work like this. Many of the "outlier good ideas" in legislation are those that integrate the facts on the ground and consider e.g. implementation complexity.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  Are there annoying ones that are compliant?
  - di4na 6y ago
    Nope. If it is annoying, then it is not an informed consent acceptable opt-in because you are pushed into accepting to make it go away.
thibaut_barrere 6y ago
As someone implementing data pipelines & doing enterprise integration (along with web work), I massively disagree. GDPR is the best "needle mover" in terms of "we don't care about xyz" in the last 15 years. In a meeting, even as an external contractor, you can now much more easily highlight privacy/security issues without being told that you are "too caring", and it will actually have an impact (because there is a widely known law & control body).
alkonaut 6y ago
GDPR is a pretty big thing. Cookies, and cookie consents is a tiny tiny bit of it. If there is an annoying popup on a website it's not compliant. E.g. if you need to switch OFF multiple accept switches, then it's blatantly in violation (default must be off). I have no idea why sites would even bother putting up a noncompliant GDPR popup instead of just ignoring it.

Nursie 6y ago

> in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. That's because those sites want to track you, for profit, and they usually want to confuse you into agreeing in the weakest way possible. These popups are entirely unnecessary, if sites would just stop tracking you and allowing third parties to track you.

Mirioron 6y ago
>These popups are entirely unnecessary, if sites would just stop tracking you and allowing third parties to track you. Yeah, who needs money to operate a service anyway. Can't they just be happy that I'm even willing to consume their content?! These websites do that so that they can provide the website in the first place. If they didn't then there would be no website for you to complain about.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > If they didn't then there would be no website for you to complain about. Oh no, my business model of selling everything I can glean about you in exchange for some recycled 'content' is under threat! Oh noes! If you can't operate without tracking and you can't legitimately and consensually persuade people to participate in it without resorting to dark patterns and hiding controls, your business is no longer viable, sorry. Find a new model or make way for someone else that can.
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  You are entirely free to show adds and to charge money. The popups are only necessary if you additionally want to spy on users.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    And by "spy on users" you mean "show ads that might at least remotely be relevant to the user"? The world is a lot bigger than the US. If there was no targeting of any kind then half of the ads you'd see would be in languages you can't even understand. Hell, that's the situation right now if you live in certain places in the world and this is with some tracking!
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > If there was no targeting of any kind then half of the ads you'd see would be in languages you can't even understand. Given I have zero interest in seeing ads in the first place, this sounds like a 'you' problem. I'm not trying to be snarky here - this idea that relevant ads are important to users seems to be some sort of industry delusion. Why should I care if the people trying to sell me stuff while I read a news article are less able to target me? The ads are already an attention-demanding annoyance, it hardly matters what they're for.

unionpivo 6y ago

Nah its better push out something out, and then amend it over time, than spend 20 years discussing it and bikeshedding.

pamperson 6y ago
it would be great but i doubt it will be revised any time soon, the eu is very stiff.
- di4na 6y ago
  There are already 2 text coming that significantly change it. Mostly to make it more protective. Search for "ePrivacy". On top of that, there is a wide range given to the DPA which they are using. It is just that the EU agencies prefer to try to educate first before hitting companies hard, which makes sense. In practice, if it had not been for Covid, the UK DPA would have killed multiple adtech company during the Summer. They had announced having planned it earlier this year.

icebraining 6y ago

> in practice you just have to click an annoying number of accept buttons. The vast majority of those aren't GDPR-compliant, they're just attempts at paying lip-service while maintaining the old ways, and they're usually illegal.

sveme 6y ago

You misunderstand policy making. A lawmaker is not (and should not be) interested in providing a way of how to implement things, but how things should be, they are only providing the normative side. The executive and judicative branch of the state then specifies how things should be implemented. Most GDPR implementations that are so annoying are actually wrong.

jpttsn 6y ago
I agree that this is how most legislation does work: dream up something that would be great and ignore the facts on the ground and live with a predictable shitshow of implementations. To me it's a stretch to say legislation ought to work like this. Many of the "outlier good ideas" in legislation are those that integrate the facts on the ground and consider e.g. implementation complexity.
Semaphor 6y ago
Are there annoying ones that are compliant?
- di4na 6y ago
  Nope. If it is annoying, then it is not an informed consent acceptable opt-in because you are pushed into accepting to make it go away.

thibaut_barrere 6y ago

As someone implementing data pipelines & doing enterprise integration (along with web work), I massively disagree. GDPR is the best "needle mover" in terms of "we don't care about xyz" in the last 15 years. In a meeting, even as an external contractor, you can now much more easily highlight privacy/security issues without being told that you are "too caring", and it will actually have an impact (because there is a widely known law & control body).

alkonaut 6y ago

GDPR is a pretty big thing. Cookies, and cookie consents is a tiny tiny bit of it. If there is an annoying popup on a website it's not compliant. E.g. if you need to switch OFF multiple accept switches, then it's blatantly in violation (default must be off). I have no idea why sites would even bother putting up a noncompliant GDPR popup instead of just ignoring it.