9 ms·

Does this mean the US visitors data is not protected? Or no resources to add a cookie banner?

by biermic 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago
It means they're tracking US visitors in ways intrusive enough to be illegal in Europe, yes.
- superkuh 6y ago
  Only if you enable javascript. This is exactly equivalent to opening every email attachment you receive. It's absurd this is considered the norm. You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default. Also, don't visit sites that you disagree with. This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want. It's easy to understand why international sites block European visitors to avoid that violence-backed coercion.
  - anoa_ 6y ago
    I would say it's equivalent to opening all email attachments in a VM, as there is a sandbox these things run in. That's security-wise though. Privacy-wise there's certainly more fingerprintable data available to the program than what you would get in a typical VM.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default. Sure, you try explaining that to the general public, and why most of the sites they visit don't work anymore. It's hard enough to manage as a techie. This is the same argument snake oil purveyors use to complain about health and safety regulations, and it's silly for the same reasons. > This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want. Which GDPR violations have been met with armed agents?
    - superkuh 6y ago
      I don't know about the public. That is many people I don't have control of. I do know that I can do it myself and it works fine and I can work around things. I think this is true for many technical people. And I think doing this would encourage many of us to think of better ways to design and implement no-JS fallback functionality when making things for the public to use.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > I don't know about the public. The EU is tasked with protecting their public in a way that you are not.
        superkuh 6y ago
        Just to refresh, the context of this sub-thread is about what people outside of the EU should do. Those living in the EU already subscribe to social policies based on positive liberty and can ignore discussions about individual responsibility for their behavior.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    People really need to stop suggesting disabling Javascript as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got hacked? Should have turned off Javascript.” Stop blaming the victim. Browsers come with Javascript turned on by default and many sites expect Javascript will work, so it’s a reasonable expectation that users leave Javascript enabled. Secondly there are a lot of devices that people access the web from. It’s not possible or easy to turn off Javascript on all platforms. If I ran my iPhone with Javascript disabled, every site I visited that needed Javascript would make me stop, go to Settings, scroll down to find Safari, scroll all the way to the bottom to find Advanced, then toggle the Javascript button. Then go back to Safari, view the site I wanted to see, then do it all over again to disable Javascript again. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing GDPR with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
    - wickedwideweb 6y ago
      People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms. Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
    - superkuh 6y ago
      I'm reposting this reply to you because it makes my argument well. The other guy's "new" account got wiped out by it's new status and was easily downvoted away from people that can't read "dead" posts. Anyway, here it is: People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms. Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
jcims 6y ago
Maybe. Maybe not. Regulatory compliance is orthogonal to security and privacy. Just ask PCI folks.
hoorayimhelping 6y ago
It means they're not complying with European Union laws. Whether you think complying with a law is synonymous with protection, or security or privacy is up to your experience and worldview.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Or that they don’t know if they are complying.

Does this mean the US visitors data is not protected? Or no resources to add a cookie banner?

ceejayoz 6y ago

It means they're tracking US visitors in ways intrusive enough to be illegal in Europe, yes.

superkuh 6y ago
Only if you enable javascript. This is exactly equivalent to opening every email attachment you receive. It's absurd this is considered the norm. You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default. Also, don't visit sites that you disagree with. This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want. It's easy to understand why international sites block European visitors to avoid that violence-backed coercion.
- anoa_ 6y ago
  I would say it's equivalent to opening all email attachments in a VM, as there is a sandbox these things run in. That's security-wise though. Privacy-wise there's certainly more fingerprintable data available to the program than what you would get in a typical VM.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default. Sure, you try explaining that to the general public, and why most of the sites they visit don't work anymore. It's hard enough to manage as a techie. This is the same argument snake oil purveyors use to complain about health and safety regulations, and it's silly for the same reasons. > This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want. Which GDPR violations have been met with armed agents?
  - superkuh 6y ago
    I don't know about the public. That is many people I don't have control of. I do know that I can do it myself and it works fine and I can work around things. I think this is true for many technical people. And I think doing this would encourage many of us to think of better ways to design and implement no-JS fallback functionality when making things for the public to use.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > I don't know about the public. The EU is tasked with protecting their public in a way that you are not.
      - superkuh 6y ago
        Just to refresh, the context of this sub-thread is about what people outside of the EU should do. Those living in the EU already subscribe to social policies based on positive liberty and can ignore discussions about individual responsibility for their behavior.
- freehunter 6y ago
  People really need to stop suggesting disabling Javascript as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got hacked? Should have turned off Javascript.” Stop blaming the victim. Browsers come with Javascript turned on by default and many sites expect Javascript will work, so it’s a reasonable expectation that users leave Javascript enabled. Secondly there are a lot of devices that people access the web from. It’s not possible or easy to turn off Javascript on all platforms. If I ran my iPhone with Javascript disabled, every site I visited that needed Javascript would make me stop, go to Settings, scroll down to find Safari, scroll all the way to the bottom to find Advanced, then toggle the Javascript button. Then go back to Safari, view the site I wanted to see, then do it all over again to disable Javascript again. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing GDPR with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
  - wickedwideweb 6y ago
    People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms. Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    I'm reposting this reply to you because it makes my argument well. The other guy's "new" account got wiped out by it's new status and was easily downvoted away from people that can't read "dead" posts. Anyway, here it is: People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms. Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest. Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.

jcims 6y ago

Maybe. Maybe not. Regulatory compliance is orthogonal to security and privacy. Just ask PCI folks.

hoorayimhelping 6y ago

It means they're not complying with European Union laws. Whether you think complying with a law is synonymous with protection, or security or privacy is up to your experience and worldview.

ben_w 6y ago
Or that they don’t know if they are complying.