5 ms·

Finally! Some people keep arguing that GDPR is toothless and unenforced, but I think it's just that it takes time to tame the wild west. It's work in progress

Finally! Some people keep arguing that GDPR is toothless and unenforced, but I think it's just that it takes time to tame the wild west. It's work in progress, and that progress is looking ok. I really hope also pass at least the part of DSA where they make terminal signals for opting out of tracking legally binding.

m12k 5y ago
Yep, overall I'm really happy with the GDPR. The main thing I'd like to see changed is that consent dialogs should be a built-in browser feature with a standardized interface that all websites were required to use instead of coming up with their own. That way we could finally end this farce of the ad-industry's attempts at weaseling their way around the word of the law (and the latest rulings) by designing dark pattern consent boxes.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  In general, I agree that it would be nice. Not sure what the right way to legislate that would be, but I'm sure there are ways. However, if DNT/GPC (which can signal opt out but not much else) becomes legally binding (as they very well might, with DSA), that'd be a huge win for me personally, because I don't see my self ever consenting, and reading consent dialogs isn't worth my time. As I understand it, GPC is already legally binding in California thanks to CCPA.
  - Xelbair 5y ago
    No need for that if they just complied with GDPR. Consent must be given consciously in informed way - therefore NOTHING can be pre-checked by any dialog to make it comply with GDPR. They just need to somehow ban dark patters, or standardize the dialog. To be honest, just one high profile case that interprets dark pattern as 'uninformed consent'(therefore not legal under GDPR) would be enough.
- bobajeff 5y ago
  >The main thing I'd like to see changed is that consent dialogs should be a built-in browser feature with a standardized interface that all websites were required to use instead of coming up with their own. I love that idea. Something like Apple's nutrition labels but with check boxes next to data uses. However this is only good if it's legally enforceable since there is no API that would prove/verify data is used the way it's been given permission to.
- amelius 5y ago
  This is what the DoNotTrack header was designed for, originally. I guess the big corporations didn't like it and lobbied for the next-worst thing, the cookie popups, hoping that it would become a big failure.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Well, the DNT header was kneecapped from the beginning, as it was required to be off by default, whereas GDPR rightly reuqires users to explicitly request to be tracked.
acdha 5y ago
> Some people keep arguing that GDPR is toothless and unenforced, but I think it's just that it takes time to tame the wild west. Yes, the logic is frustrating: the big advertising companies have been trying malicious compliance for political reasons. It’s not like they couldn’t build better systems if they were trying to honor the intention of the law.

m12k 5y ago

Yep, overall I'm really happy with the GDPR. The main thing I'd like to see changed is that consent dialogs should be a built-in browser feature with a standardized interface that all websites were required to use instead of coming up with their own. That way we could finally end this farce of the ad-industry's attempts at weaseling their way around the word of the law (and the latest rulings) by designing dark pattern consent boxes.

foxfluff 5y ago
In general, I agree that it would be nice. Not sure what the right way to legislate that would be, but I'm sure there are ways. However, if DNT/GPC (which can signal opt out but not much else) becomes legally binding (as they very well might, with DSA), that'd be a huge win for me personally, because I don't see my self ever consenting, and reading consent dialogs isn't worth my time. As I understand it, GPC is already legally binding in California thanks to CCPA.
- Xelbair 5y ago
  No need for that if they just complied with GDPR. Consent must be given consciously in informed way - therefore NOTHING can be pre-checked by any dialog to make it comply with GDPR. They just need to somehow ban dark patters, or standardize the dialog. To be honest, just one high profile case that interprets dark pattern as 'uninformed consent'(therefore not legal under GDPR) would be enough.
bobajeff 5y ago
>The main thing I'd like to see changed is that consent dialogs should be a built-in browser feature with a standardized interface that all websites were required to use instead of coming up with their own. I love that idea. Something like Apple's nutrition labels but with check boxes next to data uses. However this is only good if it's legally enforceable since there is no API that would prove/verify data is used the way it's been given permission to.
amelius 5y ago
This is what the DoNotTrack header was designed for, originally. I guess the big corporations didn't like it and lobbied for the next-worst thing, the cookie popups, hoping that it would become a big failure.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Well, the DNT header was kneecapped from the beginning, as it was required to be off by default, whereas GDPR rightly reuqires users to explicitly request to be tracked.

acdha 5y ago

> Some people keep arguing that GDPR is toothless and unenforced, but I think it's just that it takes time to tame the wild west. Yes, the logic is frustrating: the big advertising companies have been trying malicious compliance for political reasons. It’s not like they couldn’t build better systems if they were trying to honor the intention of the law.