3 ms·

Advertisers don't raid your house.

by oss2020 5y ago

nyokodo 5y ago
> Advertisers don't raid your house. No, but they can give that data to the FBI who do raid houses.
- isomorphic 5y ago
  As the parent post noted, the USA Today home page makes requests to dozens of third-parties--including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and something called "summerhamster". I'm sure one of the dozens will take the FBI's call. Hilariously, the USA Today homepage also hits OneTrust, who has the slogan "Privacy, Security and Data Governance" right in the <title>. What is there to govern if nearly all the major tech players have your access logs? USA Today is shouting its readers' reading behavior from the mountain top.
  - peterkelly 5y ago
    Probably it would be easier for the FBI if they just started their own advertising/analytics company.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Too easy.
  - 2cb 5y ago
    OneTrust is very commonly used for the legally required cookie banners for EU readers.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      There is no legal requirement to have cookies so there is no legal requirement for any banners
      - kybernetikos 5y ago
        And you don't need consent for cookies that are obviously required for normal site functioning like login etc.
        midasuni 5y ago
        Bang on. For example A user visits an e-commerce website and decides to purchase a product. They add it to their shopping basket before continuing browsing for more goods they wish to buy. They then finish their shopping by going through the website’s checkout process. The website uses cookies to ensure that when the user chooses the goods they wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’ button, the site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page. In this context, the cookie is ‘strictly necessary’ to provide the service the user requests and so the exemption would apply and no consent would be required
    - lrem 5y ago
      We all cheer for Max Schrems to teach these companies that misconstruing cookie banners as complying with EU regulations is a risky play.
  - ev1 5y ago
    summerhamster is one of a billion of those shitty "adblock detecting!!!" "dont lose money!!!" malicious JS domains.
bottled_poe 5y ago
well, not physically I suppose

Advertisers don't raid your house.

nyokodo 5y ago

> Advertisers don't raid your house. No, but they can give that data to the FBI who do raid houses.

isomorphic 5y ago
As the parent post noted, the USA Today home page makes requests to dozens of third-parties--including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and something called "summerhamster". I'm sure one of the dozens will take the FBI's call. Hilariously, the USA Today homepage also hits OneTrust, who has the slogan "Privacy, Security and Data Governance" right in the <title>. What is there to govern if nearly all the major tech players have your access logs? USA Today is shouting its readers' reading behavior from the mountain top.
- peterkelly 5y ago
  Probably it would be easier for the FBI if they just started their own advertising/analytics company.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Too easy.
- 2cb 5y ago
  OneTrust is very commonly used for the legally required cookie banners for EU readers.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    There is no legal requirement to have cookies so there is no legal requirement for any banners
    - kybernetikos 5y ago
      And you don't need consent for cookies that are obviously required for normal site functioning like login etc.
      - midasuni 5y ago
        Bang on. For example A user visits an e-commerce website and decides to purchase a product. They add it to their shopping basket before continuing browsing for more goods they wish to buy. They then finish their shopping by going through the website’s checkout process. The website uses cookies to ensure that when the user chooses the goods they wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’ button, the site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page. In this context, the cookie is ‘strictly necessary’ to provide the service the user requests and so the exemption would apply and no consent would be required
  - lrem 5y ago
    We all cheer for Max Schrems to teach these companies that misconstruing cookie banners as complying with EU regulations is a risky play.
- ev1 5y ago
  summerhamster is one of a billion of those shitty "adblock detecting!!!" "dont lose money!!!" malicious JS domains.

bottled_poe 5y ago

well, not physically I suppose