3 ms·

Typical UK government, dangling some inconsequential benefit (tip of the iceberg) while eroding basic human rights. The problem is that I’m sure the general p

Typical UK government, dangling some inconsequential benefit (tip of the iceberg) while eroding basic human rights. The problem is that I’m sure the general public will be in favour of removing those banners. This is like dissolving public education to remove those pesky exams from children’s lives. If aligns with Tory business interests so taking everything into account I’m sure it will go ahead but the level of dishonesty is surprising. I’ll be paying attention to anyone calling this out.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Technically GDPR could be amended to require compliance notifications to be non-obtrusive and still default to strong privacy protection like disabling non-essential functionality or data collection and processing. Of course the ad companies rely on the bad and obtrusive pop-up design to annoy users into clicking accept.
- dspillett 5y ago
  Technically GDPR (and other similar regulations) do already require compliance notifications to be non-obtrusive, or at least rejecting consent to be no more difficult than accepting it. Unfortunately that isn't adequately enforced so everyone gets away with making it a massive pain to reliably opt-out and very easy to accidentally permanently opt-in.
- erhk 5y ago
  ELI5 what an "essential" cookie is. Afaik none of them are essential if I refuse to make an account on your platform
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    Or add an item to a shopping basket. But yes, that's about it.
  - corobo 5y ago
    If you change cookie settings and want them to remain next time (instead of another popup) that is stored in an essential cookie They're (supposed to be) the ones you can't get rid of, sessions and that. Stuff that would break the site if you couldn't track state across requests
- petre 5y ago
  One could set the preferences in their browser once for ever site and maybe add exceptions like in the camera permissions dialog. Make it a simple three choice option, like only necessary (login, shopping basket) cookies, analytics and all, defaulting to necessary only.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
What "human rights" are being violated by getting rid of those dumb cookie popups?
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  I think the cookie popups "normalized deviance". Since that is something required, maybe even thought of as virtuous, why not pop up two different boxes asking for the user's email address before they've had a chance to read the content?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    That's a real stretch, to put it charitably.
- erhk 5y ago
  Did you miss the part about sending user data internationally
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I think you may have missed this part? > Data adequacy in this sense means an agreement that the protections in place are similar in two countries, with the idea of ensuring that personal information remains safe. It is a key part of EU regulations and was a minor sticking point in the Brexit negotiations.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    As opposed to the EU stance, where sharing personal data with US organisations has repeatedly been found in court to violate the data protection rules? That mostly seems to be because US law grants its government security agencies much the same intrusive powers to examine data as most EU governments grant theirs and EU law explicitly allows for in the latter case. There are reasonable discussions to be had about the necessity for such measures and the safeguards and transparency requirements that are appropriate if they are used, but objecting to international data transfers on this basis, as EU courts have repeatedly done, seems a bit hypocritical.

AstralStorm 5y ago

Technically GDPR could be amended to require compliance notifications to be non-obtrusive and still default to strong privacy protection like disabling non-essential functionality or data collection and processing. Of course the ad companies rely on the bad and obtrusive pop-up design to annoy users into clicking accept.

dspillett 5y ago
Technically GDPR (and other similar regulations) do already require compliance notifications to be non-obtrusive, or at least rejecting consent to be no more difficult than accepting it. Unfortunately that isn't adequately enforced so everyone gets away with making it a massive pain to reliably opt-out and very easy to accidentally permanently opt-in.
erhk 5y ago
ELI5 what an "essential" cookie is. Afaik none of them are essential if I refuse to make an account on your platform
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  Or add an item to a shopping basket. But yes, that's about it.
- corobo 5y ago
  If you change cookie settings and want them to remain next time (instead of another popup) that is stored in an essential cookie They're (supposed to be) the ones you can't get rid of, sessions and that. Stuff that would break the site if you couldn't track state across requests
petre 5y ago
One could set the preferences in their browser once for ever site and maybe add exceptions like in the camera permissions dialog. Make it a simple three choice option, like only necessary (login, shopping basket) cookies, analytics and all, defaulting to necessary only.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

What "human rights" are being violated by getting rid of those dumb cookie popups?

PaulHoule 5y ago
I think the cookie popups "normalized deviance". Since that is something required, maybe even thought of as virtuous, why not pop up two different boxes asking for the user's email address before they've had a chance to read the content?
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  That's a real stretch, to put it charitably.
erhk 5y ago
Did you miss the part about sending user data internationally
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I think you may have missed this part? > Data adequacy in this sense means an agreement that the protections in place are similar in two countries, with the idea of ensuring that personal information remains safe. It is a key part of EU regulations and was a minor sticking point in the Brexit negotiations.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  As opposed to the EU stance, where sharing personal data with US organisations has repeatedly been found in court to violate the data protection rules? That mostly seems to be because US law grants its government security agencies much the same intrusive powers to examine data as most EU governments grant theirs and EU law explicitly allows for in the latter case. There are reasonable discussions to be had about the necessity for such measures and the safeguards and transparency requirements that are appropriate if they are used, but objecting to international data transfers on this basis, as EU courts have repeatedly done, seems a bit hypocritical.