4 ms·

That, and GDPR. Damn I'm so glad I live in the EU. Say what you will about those annoying cookie banners, I see that as good things. Progress is made!

by aspyct 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xxs 5y ago
Those cookie banners are often times illegal, i.e. consent has to be freely given and it should not be as easy not to give, instead of click and select multiple choices. The explanations have to be layman ones and what not. It's a very dark pattern, and at some point it should be addressed.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
Sorry have to disagree. GDPR, cookie banners and now this new ad-ban are just putting plasters over a problem, rather actually solving the root-cause of the problem. Now I'm not saying that solving the root causes of these problems is easy, but these solutions are just so lame. Just a couple of concrete examples: * I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. * The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. The solution should be that the EU creates its own Big Tech, under the rules and regulations that it itself creates. Instead all of our politicians are using WhatsApp to perform Official communications (frankly this is horrific to me).
- mmarq 5y ago
  > I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. Companies may ignore law, but fines are being issued, so they do it at their own risk: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. These cookie banners are (slowly) being deemed illegal: "Accept all" and "Reject all" must have the same prominence and accessibility. GDPR is forcing companies to care about security and about how they use information about their users and, probably for the first time, it's forcing companies to be transparent with how they are processing their users' data. And it's not requiring company to do anything you wouldn't expect an honest person to do when you give them some personal information, it's not just throwing bureaucracy at a problem.
- etripe 5y ago
  > I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere The legal follow-up could be better. The exacted fines should actually follow the law instead of being softened. With at least 4% of gross revenue in every instance, it would have bite and act to curb the excesses, thereby tackling the root problem. After all, it was never meant to outlaw data collection, just excessive surveillance. > The annoying cookie banners The GDPR isn't unclear about what companies can collect, what consent should be asked and how. Those banners are malicious compliance or non-compliance. They're purposefully built that way to get you as a potential consumer riled up about the regulation. And it's working: instead of talking about the companies trying to abuse your data and implementing horrible popups that don't do what the law says they should, you're now upset at the regulators. Classic case of "Don't like what they're saying? Change the narrative".
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > And it's working: instead of talking about the companies trying to abuse your data and implementing horrible popups that don't do what the law says they should, you're now upset at the regulators. Actually I'm upset at both the companies using dark patterns and the horribly designed cookie regulations.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      What is horrible about the design of the cookie regulation?
- foxfluff 5y ago
  > I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. It was wild west before GDPR, it takes time for companies and attitudes to adjust. And that adjustment is ongoing. Every fine helps; it results in increasing compliance. Give it a few years, wild west won't be so wild anymore. I'm sure you'll still find lots of smaller companies that didn't get the memo but the likelihood that your daily activities involve entities that violate your privacy left and right is getting lower and lower. > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems Annoying banners are not EU strategy, they are strategy by companies who want to violate your rights and annoy you until you consent. The regulators are aware of this problem and I believe it's being worked on. The DSA proposal discussed in the article includes additional regulation against dark patterns and there's this little bit: > In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. I have no idea if it's going to work out but this would make something like Do Not Track legally binding. I very much support this bit, because I hate annoying consent nags as much as you do..
sgjohnson 5y ago
GDPR is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the past decade. It’s deliberately ambiguous, oftentimes nonsensical, was a nightmare to implement, there’s enormous amounts of noncompliance, and now plenty of sites that can’t be accessed from the EU, because the company behind it did the math and it was cheaper and easier to not care about the EU customer base at all. Not to mention all the potential avenues for abuse. I have a couple of friends who have used GDPR to actively abuse a relatively small company that they didn’t like (because they probably didn’t have the resources to understand all the implications of GDPR), and they spammed them with personal data and removal requests and threatened legal action. GDPR is bullshit. Your data is a commodity irrespective of GDPR. De-anonymising is trivial. GDPR also double-victimizes businesses that were a part of a hack, i.e. the British Airways hack. On top of the damage inflicted on them by the hack, they also got hit with an 8 figure fine for a data breach. Which is insane, because everyone can get hacked. The only thing GDPR has achieved is that you have a legal right to access the data that somebody holds on you, and to request the deletion of it. Everything else should be scrapped.
- petre 5y ago
  It's probably the first legislation that deals with user privacy and data transfers. It can be improved and it will most likely be improved. The cookie dialog options should be really a single option placed in the browser's settings, which should be passed to the host through http headers, like DNT. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN... Companies who 'did the math' and it was easier for them to ignore the EU customer base were addicted to ad placement and tracking anyway, so good riddance. Companies should be responsible for their data security. If a bank is hacked and they steal my money, the money is insured and the insurance company pays it back. It's the same with personal data, if a data breach occurs, the company should be insured and the insurance company should cover liabilities.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    > Companies should be responsible for their data security. If a bank is hacked and they steal my money, the money is insured and the insurance company pays it back. It's the same with personal data, if a data breach occurs, the company should be insured and the insurance company should cover liabilities. Of course, but they shouldn’t be hit with an arbitrary fine on top of that. The fine goes directly to the government’s coffers, and not to cover any liabilities incurred. It’s kicking a man who’s already down. > Companies who 'did the math' and it was easier for them to ignore the EU customer base were addicted to ad placement and tracking anyway, so good riddance. Not necessarily. In most cases it just didn’t make sense for them to hire a lawyer who specialised in the GDPR (I believe they were hard to come by and expensive in the US and the rest of the world), so they just decided to HTTP 451 instead.
f6v 5y ago
The usability of the web has declined substantially because of what the EU came up with. I need to click buttons on every goddamn site I visit.

That, and GDPR. Damn I'm so glad I live in the EU. Say what you will about those annoying cookie banners, I see that as good things. Progress is made!

by aspyct 5y ago

That, and GDPR. Damn I'm so glad I live in the EU. Say what you will about those annoying cookie banners, I see that as good things. Progress is made!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xxs 5y ago

Those cookie banners are often times illegal, i.e. consent has to be freely given and it should not be as easy not to give, instead of click and select multiple choices. The explanations have to be layman ones and what not. It's a very dark pattern, and at some point it should be addressed.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

Sorry have to disagree. GDPR, cookie banners and now this new ad-ban are just putting plasters over a problem, rather actually solving the root-cause of the problem. Now I'm not saying that solving the root causes of these problems is easy, but these solutions are just so lame. Just a couple of concrete examples: * I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. * The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. The solution should be that the EU creates its own Big Tech, under the rules and regulations that it itself creates. Instead all of our politicians are using WhatsApp to perform Official communications (frankly this is horrific to me).

mmarq 5y ago
> I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. At the end of the day, Big Tech still owns all the personal data in some way or another getting around EU restrictions. Companies may ignore law, but fines are being issued, so they do it at their own risk: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems: just throw more bureaucracy and administration at a problem. These cookie banners are (slowly) being deemed illegal: "Accept all" and "Reject all" must have the same prominence and accessibility. GDPR is forcing companies to care about security and about how they use information about their users and, probably for the first time, it's forcing companies to be transparent with how they are processing their users' data. And it's not requiring company to do anything you wouldn't expect an honest person to do when you give them some personal information, it's not just throwing bureaucracy at a problem.
etripe 5y ago
> I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere The legal follow-up could be better. The exacted fines should actually follow the law instead of being softened. With at least 4% of gross revenue in every instance, it would have bite and act to curb the excesses, thereby tackling the root problem. After all, it was never meant to outlaw data collection, just excessive surveillance. > The annoying cookie banners The GDPR isn't unclear about what companies can collect, what consent should be asked and how. Those banners are malicious compliance or non-compliance. They're purposefully built that way to get you as a potential consumer riled up about the regulation. And it's working: instead of talking about the companies trying to abuse your data and implementing horrible popups that don't do what the law says they should, you're now upset at the regulators. Classic case of "Don't like what they're saying? Change the narrative".
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > And it's working: instead of talking about the companies trying to abuse your data and implementing horrible popups that don't do what the law says they should, you're now upset at the regulators. Actually I'm upset at both the companies using dark patterns and the horribly designed cookie regulations.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    What is horrible about the design of the cookie regulation?
foxfluff 5y ago
> I see and hear of GDPR violations everywhere (here in the UK, pre and post Brexit). Despite the threat of legal action, companies still ignore (too small to care) or are ignorant of the rules. It was wild west before GDPR, it takes time for companies and attitudes to adjust. And that adjustment is ongoing. Every fine helps; it results in increasing compliance. Give it a few years, wild west won't be so wild anymore. I'm sure you'll still find lots of smaller companies that didn't get the memo but the likelihood that your daily activities involve entities that violate your privacy left and right is getting lower and lower. > The annoying cookie banners where everyone just clicks "accept all" because no one wants to go through a list of checkboxes. This is classic EU strategy to problems Annoying banners are not EU strategy, they are strategy by companies who want to violate your rights and annoy you until you consent. The regulators are aware of this problem and I believe it's being worked on. The DSA proposal discussed in the article includes additional regulation against dark patterns and there's this little bit: > In order to avoid fatiguing recipients who refuse to consent, terminal equipment settings that signal an objection to processing of personal data should be respected. I have no idea if it's going to work out but this would make something like Do Not Track legally binding. I very much support this bit, because I hate annoying consent nags as much as you do..

sgjohnson 5y ago

GDPR is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the past decade. It’s deliberately ambiguous, oftentimes nonsensical, was a nightmare to implement, there’s enormous amounts of noncompliance, and now plenty of sites that can’t be accessed from the EU, because the company behind it did the math and it was cheaper and easier to not care about the EU customer base at all. Not to mention all the potential avenues for abuse. I have a couple of friends who have used GDPR to actively abuse a relatively small company that they didn’t like (because they probably didn’t have the resources to understand all the implications of GDPR), and they spammed them with personal data and removal requests and threatened legal action. GDPR is bullshit. Your data is a commodity irrespective of GDPR. De-anonymising is trivial. GDPR also double-victimizes businesses that were a part of a hack, i.e. the British Airways hack. On top of the damage inflicted on them by the hack, they also got hit with an 8 figure fine for a data breach. Which is insane, because everyone can get hacked. The only thing GDPR has achieved is that you have a legal right to access the data that somebody holds on you, and to request the deletion of it. Everything else should be scrapped.

petre 5y ago
It's probably the first legislation that deals with user privacy and data transfers. It can be improved and it will most likely be improved. The cookie dialog options should be really a single option placed in the browser's settings, which should be passed to the host through http headers, like DNT. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN... Companies who 'did the math' and it was easier for them to ignore the EU customer base were addicted to ad placement and tracking anyway, so good riddance. Companies should be responsible for their data security. If a bank is hacked and they steal my money, the money is insured and the insurance company pays it back. It's the same with personal data, if a data breach occurs, the company should be insured and the insurance company should cover liabilities.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  > Companies should be responsible for their data security. If a bank is hacked and they steal my money, the money is insured and the insurance company pays it back. It's the same with personal data, if a data breach occurs, the company should be insured and the insurance company should cover liabilities. Of course, but they shouldn’t be hit with an arbitrary fine on top of that. The fine goes directly to the government’s coffers, and not to cover any liabilities incurred. It’s kicking a man who’s already down. > Companies who 'did the math' and it was easier for them to ignore the EU customer base were addicted to ad placement and tracking anyway, so good riddance. Not necessarily. In most cases it just didn’t make sense for them to hire a lawyer who specialised in the GDPR (I believe they were hard to come by and expensive in the US and the rest of the world), so they just decided to HTTP 451 instead.

f6v 5y ago

The usability of the web has declined substantially because of what the EU came up with. I need to click buttons on every goddamn site I visit.