4 ms·

It's the member states that are tasked with enforcing it. Here's what they've been up to: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com

It's the member states that are tasked with enforcing it. Here's what they've been up to: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

a_imho 6y ago
The EU member states do not care. Is it better? It was adopted 4 years ago, enforceable for the past 2 years. Still every single site that even cares about showing a nagbox offers only opt-outs. Those numbers listed are a joke compared to the 4% worldwide revenue stick. What's the point of the big words if we are not prepared to back them up?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  What do you mean “The EU member states do not care”? @seslaire literally posted a link to a list of GDPR enforcements.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    I don't get the confusion 1. Most sites are blatantly non compliant, see opt-outs (presets). For example if someone from covered regions does a search on Google right now it presents them with 2 buttons, 'I agree' and 'See more', the former is pre-checked to enable tracking everything, the latter leads into a labyrinth of settings. Not even an opt-out everything is presented (itself non compliant, but still). It is presented everytime, unless they sign up for a Google Account and/or download their browser extension. This is definitely not how private by default should work. 2. The EU created a stick big enough in theory to go after anyone, yet they refuse to do so for years. Indeed, we are probably interpreting those numbers differently. They are a slap on the wrist at best and anchoring the discussion at the wrong point. For example in the above case the potential fines for Google could be up to ~$6B yet the listings do not add up to $60M, that's two orders of magnitude. As it stands, GDPR achieved very little so far to protect the average user. Tracking is as bad and invasive as it has been for years.

4 ms·

It's the member states that are tasked with enforcing it. Here's what they've been up to: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com

by seslaire 6y ago

It's the member states that are tasked with enforcing it. Here's what they've been up to: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

a_imho 6y ago
The EU member states do not care. Is it better? It was adopted 4 years ago, enforceable for the past 2 years. Still every single site that even cares about showing a nagbox offers only opt-outs. Those numbers listed are a joke compared to the 4% worldwide revenue stick. What's the point of the big words if we are not prepared to back them up?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  What do you mean “The EU member states do not care”? @seslaire literally posted a link to a list of GDPR enforcements.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    I don't get the confusion 1. Most sites are blatantly non compliant, see opt-outs (presets). For example if someone from covered regions does a search on Google right now it presents them with 2 buttons, 'I agree' and 'See more', the former is pre-checked to enable tracking everything, the latter leads into a labyrinth of settings. Not even an opt-out everything is presented (itself non compliant, but still). It is presented everytime, unless they sign up for a Google Account and/or download their browser extension. This is definitely not how private by default should work. 2. The EU created a stick big enough in theory to go after anyone, yet they refuse to do so for years. Indeed, we are probably interpreting those numbers differently. They are a slap on the wrist at best and anchoring the discussion at the wrong point. For example in the above case the potential fines for Google could be up to ~$6B yet the listings do not add up to $60M, that's two orders of magnitude. As it stands, GDPR achieved very little so far to protect the average user. Tracking is as bad and invasive as it has been for years.