4 ms·
That's true but the mitigation to that is that it would have been OK if the user has consented to this "data processing". The court isn't ruling this sort of t
by janoc 5y ago
That's true but the mitigation to that is that it would have been OK if the user has consented to this "data processing".
The court isn't ruling this sort of technology en bloc but says in its ruling that it is a problem because the user didn't consent to his personal data (IP address) being given to a third party (Google in this case).
Personally I have mixed feelings about this ruling too because this sort of technical solution is widespread and an army of GDPR vigilantes has the potential to cripple large portions of the web by filing similar suits. Or we won't be able to access websites without having to go through entire multi-page EULAs and consent forms for every and all kinds of similar 3rdparty technology embedding.
Law is a blunt tool and will have unintended consequences, unfortunately :(
- dorfsmay 5y agoA lot of websites won't serve addresses from Germany. I've seen companies doing that with just the GDPR cookie warning, it wasn't worth rewriting code and annoy non-EU people with the warning so the detect IP address and redirect to a page saying they don't serve that region. Let's be honest, what have we gain from the cookie warning?
- janoc 5y agoThat is a minority and mostly only US-centric sites that are otherwise chock full of advertising/tracking technology - exactly what was GDPR meant to deal with. However, GDPR and this type of ruling has EU-wide impact because of the single market (e.g. a French website can and does server also German customers). Businesses (especially the ones from the EU) can't afford to not comply or to not serve customers within the EU. That is where the problem is.