4 ms·
Like I say, we've had lawyers review our docs. Even the term "fingerprinting" has more nuance to it. Fingerprinting is used as a way to attempt to set a permane
by JackWritesCode 6y ago
Like I say, we've had lawyers review our docs. Even the term "fingerprinting" has more nuance to it. Fingerprinting is used as a way to attempt to set a permanent cookie / identify an individual, and their actions. We don't do this.
And we definitely agree that it's bonkers.
I can't say anything here until we've got our press release out.
- GordonS 6y ago> Like I say, we've had lawyers review our docs. Even the term "fingerprinting" has more nuance to it. Fingerprinting is used as a way to attempt to set a permanent cookie / identify an individual, and their actions. We don't do this. Ouch, I kind of wish you hadn't said that, because it sounds like you're straying dangerously close into weasel words and deliberately incorrectly interpretations. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but what I've read is very clear. As before I like your solution, and I think it's absolutely in the spirit of privacy. But the guidance is really clear here, and gives examples of fingerprinting. Nobody said a fingerprint has to be a permanent identifier; as far as I recall, Fathom does use fingerprinting to identify individuals, so that a sequence of page views can be attributed to a single visitor. I understand that those fingerprints include a timestamp, and so are only valid for some time (2 hours, or whatever it is).
- JackWritesCode 6y agoThanks for your input here, Gordon. It doesn't sound harsh at all, you clearly care about privacy regulations and you're trying to help. Ultimately, we had moved based on conversations with lawyers. But as I say, we are rolling out changes this week & next, so it doesn't matter what we think about the regulation :) And thanks again for the challenge.
- GordonS 6y agoThanks for the debate, and I'll be looking out for what you've got coming next!