3 ms·
But why does 50% are mostly fine with "only medical data is super special"? Your private data could be abused in a similar way. Also why not a law for full tra
by simion314 6y ago
But why does 50% are mostly fine with "only medical data is super special"? Your private data could be abused in a similar way.
Also why not a law for full transparency? You can have all your freedom you want just be transparent about all the tracking and information selling or sharing that is happening. Can't you convince the free loving americans that a simpler GDPR that only requires full transparency is "very capitalistic"?
- niij 6y agoWhat Apple is doing here is the free market solution to invasive tracking. The GDPR was the government's solution to that. I'd much prefer the Apple solution which allows for a company to be _rewarded_ for taking a voluntary stance (a positive one!) on tracking, instead of coercing every business to follow a government mandated rule on something as relatively minor as advertising.
- simion314 6y agoWhat Apple is doing is limited. A law will force everyone (not limited to websites or mobile apps) to disclose if they track you, what data they track and who they share it with. What Apple is doing is also a recent thing, so before this fancy privacy labels the market had no solution. Let me know all the downsides to a transparency law and for each downside specify who is affected by the transparency.