4 ms·

Maybe imprisonment would be better. Just a few years to teach the lesson. I mean this developer knowingly aided in getting users to see more targeted ads!

kuschku 5y ago
We're calling ourselves software engineers, maybe we should have personal liability like professional engineers then as well.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  I definitely do not call myself an engineer. I make glorified blogs.
alkonaut 5y ago
It’s not a petty crime to trade in peoples private information. Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. I’d save that for execs of companies that actually make money in the actual trade of PII. There will be room in prisons when they let people out who used <blink> tags 20 years ago…
- moduspol 5y ago
  > Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. The developer knew what s/he was doing. We're not talking jaywalking here--this person (!!) made it slightly more difficult to make a choice that most users don't understand or care about anyway! And the result is more targeted advertising! How can you stand idly by?
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    I mean deterrence is probably achieved with fines of the size that ends companies
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Changing the response of your HTTP server does not warrant jail time
    - moduspol 5y ago
      Tell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. Imagine your own mother being subjected to this kind of thing. Wouldn't you want jail time for the perpetrator? Would you stop there?
      - shukantpal 5y ago
        > Tell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. You're not being subjected to some kind of torture; in fact, you are responsible for sending the HTTP request and executing it on your computer.
deepsun 5y ago
> Just a few years to teach the lesson You sound like a Stalin (I came from an authoritarian country). Imprisonment usually does an amusingly bad job at "teaching a lesson". If you want to "teach a lesson", then why not torture?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vanusa 5y ago
  That's a classic slippery-slope argument there. That is to say, a non-argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope There's nothing "authoritarian" about imposing criminal penalties on those responsible for not just violations -- but as in this case, egregious, massive and intentional violations of consumer protection regulations. It's just how a civil society works.
- moduspol 5y ago
  I was being sarcastic, but yes, I do think these threads tend to encourage a groupthink mentality. The vast majority of users like free websites and do not feel like targeted advertising is a serious problem. This was true before GDPR and these silly cookie warnings, and it continues to be true. Likewise, implementing a cookie dialog that requires more clicks to opt out completely is not so morally questionable as to justify the discussion I had responded to.

kuschku 5y ago

We're calling ourselves software engineers, maybe we should have personal liability like professional engineers then as well.

madeofpalk 5y ago
I definitely do not call myself an engineer. I make glorified blogs.

alkonaut 5y ago

It’s not a petty crime to trade in peoples private information. Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. I’d save that for execs of companies that actually make money in the actual trade of PII. There will be room in prisons when they let people out who used <blink> tags 20 years ago…

moduspol 5y ago
> Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. The developer knew what s/he was doing. We're not talking jaywalking here--this person (!!) made it slightly more difficult to make a choice that most users don't understand or care about anyway! And the result is more targeted advertising! How can you stand idly by?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  I mean deterrence is probably achieved with fines of the size that ends companies
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Changing the response of your HTTP server does not warrant jail time
  - moduspol 5y ago
    Tell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. Imagine your own mother being subjected to this kind of thing. Wouldn't you want jail time for the perpetrator? Would you stop there?
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      > Tell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. You're not being subjected to some kind of torture; in fact, you are responsible for sending the HTTP request and executing it on your computer.

deepsun 5y ago

> Just a few years to teach the lesson You sound like a Stalin (I came from an authoritarian country). Imprisonment usually does an amusingly bad job at "teaching a lesson". If you want to "teach a lesson", then why not torture?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vanusa 5y ago
That's a classic slippery-slope argument there. That is to say, a non-argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope There's nothing "authoritarian" about imposing criminal penalties on those responsible for not just violations -- but as in this case, egregious, massive and intentional violations of consumer protection regulations. It's just how a civil society works.
moduspol 5y ago
I was being sarcastic, but yes, I do think these threads tend to encourage a groupthink mentality. The vast majority of users like free websites and do not feel like targeted advertising is a serious problem. This was true before GDPR and these silly cookie warnings, and it continues to be true. Likewise, implementing a cookie dialog that requires more clicks to opt out completely is not so morally questionable as to justify the discussion I had responded to.