3 ms·
As the article is in German: "dürfen nicht" is better translated as "are not allowed to". "may not" is too weak in this context. More: It is a preliminary ruli
by chopin 5y ago
As the article is in German: "dürfen nicht" is better translated as "are not allowed to". "may not" is too weak in this context.
More: It is a preliminary ruling until the court has come to a final verdict. As well, it's less about cookies but more about transfer of data to servers ultimately controlled by US-entities. As such, if the final ruling upholds the verdict, services like re-captcha or maybe even Cloudflare hosting (as TLS terminates there) will be affected.
- detaro 5y agoAlso: it's primarily based on applying Schrems-II, so not that surprising IMHO. This is something were lots of the industry just looks away and pretends it's not a thing, because it's quite a hassle to deal with (and arguably there is some ambiguity how far you really have to go).
- OJFord 5y ago'may not' is a bit ambiguous/context-dependent in English. For what it's worth, I didn't read it differently to 'are not allowed to'. (I assume you parsed it as 'it might happen that they don't', which yes it can also mean...)