3 ms·
Two objections. 1. A law that aims to prevent stealing should be deterring thieves, not just regulating padlocks. 2. Technical measures are insufficient becau
by lmkg 6y ago
Two objections.
1. A law that aims to prevent stealing should be deterring thieves, not just regulating padlocks.
2. Technical measures are insufficient because cookies are regulated by purpose. A third-party cookie for fraud detection is allowed; a first-party cookie for analytics requires consent. It also prevents using necessary cookies for secondary purposes, something that literally cannot be accomplished through technical means alone.
As a minor point, the so-called "cookie law" also regulates browser fingerprinting. I have a hard time imagining that you could legislatively mandate effective anti-fingerprinting approaches.
- random5634 6y agoThe reason you are provided many free services is because you ARE tracked / analyzed and marketed to. That is the CORE of the business. The popup will say, do you accept this cookie and being tracked to use this free service. Everyone literally clicks yes. I can't believe the billions of wasted clicks and manhours that have gone into this charade.