4 ms·

Note: "This is not an official EU Commission or Government resource" Which explains idiocy like > We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experien

Note: "This is not an official EU Commission or Government resource" Which explains idiocy like > We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Is simply not on. You can't assume acceptance.

miav 5y ago
This and the fact that uBlock detects 9 trackers on the site is quite puzzling given that its basically an ad/pr stunt by protonmail which itself generally doesn't have any trackers/cookie pop-ups
dred_prte_rbrts 5y ago
This is a violation of the regulator guidance for the ePrivacy Directive. So I wouldn't trust anything on this site when they themselves aren't compliant with EU directives and regulations.
- sabjut 5y ago
  To be fair the content is probably produced by a separate team which is not maintaining the actual website. Law experts don't code webpages. But this is embarrassing nevertheless.
  - tokai 5y ago
    Its produced by protonmail.
- matsemann 5y ago
  Not true. You don't have to consent to set a cookie. It depends on what the cookie does. Gdpr actually doesn't care about technicalities like cookies, but about privacy. So if you achieve the same tracking using other techniques (like Etag) that needs consent as well.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Tarq0n 5y ago
That depends entirely on what they store in the cookies.
k-mcgrady 5y ago
Why would anyone trust 'legal advice' on a complex piece of legislation from a site that can't even implement a straightforward regulation correctly.
teachingassist 5y ago
This is a little unorthodox. But, a first party cookie that stores consenting data used for reasonably expected purposes, doesn't need to ask you explicitly for consent. [As Hacker News ostensibly doesn't need cookie consent for you to log in with a cookie.] https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ suggests they share data with third-party Google Analytics, which seems to breach guidelines - except that they respect Do Not Track in this case.
kempbellt 5y ago
Sensitive topic, so I feel the need to state that I am not trying to troll by saying this: I do not see this argument as idiocy. Many stores have signs out front stating, "If you enter this building, you accept that you are being filmed". Many are recording you before you even enter. They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. Should we really assume that the client has not taken any responsibility when they willfully type in https://www.somewebsite.com/ https://www.somewebsite.com/ and hit enter? Since users can block cookies/javascript, or simply not visit websites they don't trust, I genuinely do not understand at which threshold of manual intervention we can finally conclude that a user has accepted responsibility - if their voluntary decision to visit does not count. I get that companies sharing data and doing nefarious things with your personal information is not great, but I don't see how this does anything to help with that.
- k-mcgrady 5y ago
  Although it does depend a bit on what the cookies they are storing here are used for you cannot use implied consent to workaround the law. Taking your example of signs in stores: if a store had a sign saying "if you try to steal from this store you will be shot on sight" it does not suddenly make that legal because a customer saw the sign and still decided to enter. Additionally with a website you do not see the message until you have already entered and they have already placed the cookie so again, there can't be implied consent. It's just notification of what they have already done. The EU cookie laws are basically, for non-essential cookies (e.g. mostly tracking/ad stuff) users must be given the option to reject them before they are enabled. Seems pretty simple + pretty fair to me. The problem is that most websites fail to implement it correctly. When they do implement it correctly it's really useful in my opinion.
- LinAGKar 5y ago
  >They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. The GDPR however does require explicit consent. >Should we really assume that the client has not taken any responsibility when they willfully type in https://www.somewebsite.com/ https://www.somewebsite.com/ and hit enter? I didn't type in anything or click enter to get to that site. >Since users can block cookies/javascript, Except when that breaks stuff.

miav 5y ago

This and the fact that uBlock detects 9 trackers on the site is quite puzzling given that its basically an ad/pr stunt by protonmail which itself generally doesn't have any trackers/cookie pop-ups

dred_prte_rbrts 5y ago

This is a violation of the regulator guidance for the ePrivacy Directive. So I wouldn't trust anything on this site when they themselves aren't compliant with EU directives and regulations.

sabjut 5y ago
To be fair the content is probably produced by a separate team which is not maintaining the actual website. Law experts don't code webpages. But this is embarrassing nevertheless.
- tokai 5y ago
  Its produced by protonmail.
matsemann 5y ago
Not true. You don't have to consent to set a cookie. It depends on what the cookie does. Gdpr actually doesn't care about technicalities like cookies, but about privacy. So if you achieve the same tracking using other techniques (like Etag) that needs consent as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Tarq0n 5y ago

That depends entirely on what they store in the cookies.

k-mcgrady 5y ago

Why would anyone trust 'legal advice' on a complex piece of legislation from a site that can't even implement a straightforward regulation correctly.

teachingassist 5y ago

This is a little unorthodox. But, a first party cookie that stores consenting data used for reasonably expected purposes, doesn't need to ask you explicitly for consent. [As Hacker News ostensibly doesn't need cookie consent for you to log in with a cookie.] https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ suggests they share data with third-party Google Analytics, which seems to breach guidelines - except that they respect Do Not Track in this case.

kempbellt 5y ago

Sensitive topic, so I feel the need to state that I am not trying to troll by saying this: I do not see this argument as idiocy. Many stores have signs out front stating, "If you enter this building, you accept that you are being filmed". Many are recording you before you even enter. They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. Should we really assume that the client has not taken any responsibility when they willfully type in https://www.somewebsite.com/ https://www.somewebsite.com/ and hit enter? Since users can block cookies/javascript, or simply not visit websites they don't trust, I genuinely do not understand at which threshold of manual intervention we can finally conclude that a user has accepted responsibility - if their voluntary decision to visit does not count. I get that companies sharing data and doing nefarious things with your personal information is not great, but I don't see how this does anything to help with that.

k-mcgrady 5y ago
Although it does depend a bit on what the cookies they are storing here are used for you cannot use implied consent to workaround the law. Taking your example of signs in stores: if a store had a sign saying "if you try to steal from this store you will be shot on sight" it does not suddenly make that legal because a customer saw the sign and still decided to enter. Additionally with a website you do not see the message until you have already entered and they have already placed the cookie so again, there can't be implied consent. It's just notification of what they have already done. The EU cookie laws are basically, for non-essential cookies (e.g. mostly tracking/ad stuff) users must be given the option to reject them before they are enabled. Seems pretty simple + pretty fair to me. The problem is that most websites fail to implement it correctly. When they do implement it correctly it's really useful in my opinion.
LinAGKar 5y ago
>They do not require explicit consent from people willfully choosing to enter. The GDPR however does require explicit consent. >Should we really assume that the client has not taken any responsibility when they willfully type in https://www.somewebsite.com/ https://www.somewebsite.com/ and hit enter? I didn't type in anything or click enter to get to that site. >Since users can block cookies/javascript, Except when that breaks stuff.