5 ms·

> i wish he would #standagainstgdprconsentdialogs It's amazing to behold how corporate leeches have brainwashed so many developers into thinking that its GDPR

> i wish he would #standagainstgdprconsentdialogs It's amazing to behold how corporate leeches have brainwashed so many developers into thinking that its GDPR that is bad, and not the greedy bastards who want to siphon, buy and sell all personal data on anyone without any reprecussions.

scarface74 5y ago
It’s more amazing that even though history has shown otherwise, every law that the government has ever passed has unintended consequences because 70 year old politicians don’t understand technology. They passed a 14 chapter 99 section law and all I got for it was fucking cookie banners all over the internet.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659029
  - scarface74 5y ago
    If the government passes a law that makes it worse for the people, it’s a bad law. See also the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc. Either it’s a bad law or a badly enforced law. Either way it shows the government’s general ineptness.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > If the government passes a law that makes it worse for the people, it’s a bad law. There's a very simple question I always ask people with "gdpr bad" stance. I've to receive an answer. What would be your solution to make companies from collecting your personal data without your consent? > See also the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc. Other government has initiatives being bad doesn't make all government initiatives bad. > Either it’s a bad law or a badly enforced law. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659060
      - scarface74 5y ago
        > What would be your solution to make companies from collecting your personal data without your consent? I don’t have a solution to the drug problem either. But a “solution” that makes things worse for people is not a “solution”. The first goal of government should be “do no harm”.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > I don’t have a solution to the drug problem either. Because GDPR is war on drugs and not, say food inspection, right? > The first goal of government should be “do no harm”. Ah yes. Because it's the government that forces those web sites to collect and sell your data to literally hundreds of trackers and advertisers, right?
        scarface74 5y ago
        It’s the government law that made my web browsing experience worse just like it’s the government policy that makes it harder for me to get enough psuedophredrine for my family.
tonymet 5y ago
we already had “do not track”. if they enforced it, the dialogs would not have been necessary . dialogs we’re kept to draw attention to the law . billions of hours a day wasted
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > we already had “do not track”. if they enforced it, the dialogs would not have been necessary There's more to data harvesting than "do not track". And yes, DNT header was used... for browser fingerprinting. > dialogs we’re kept to draw attention to the law No. Dialogs are there to skirt the law (and the absolute vast majority of them are illegal), and to paint the law as this bad thing by clueless politicians that force the poor-poor websites to implement them. No, it doesn't, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30656321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30656321
  - tonymet 5y ago
    leaders are responsible for outcomes, especially when they are entirely predictable
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > leaders are responsible for outcomes, especially when they are entirely predictable GDPR lists all the outcomes for such behaviour. What, in your opinion, should GPR have been to prevent this behaviour? And once again, you're not blaiming the leeches who couldn't care less about the law, or your data, or your consent.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > There's more to data harvesting than "do not track". P3P has been around forever and gives us the information that's today in consent dialogs, except machine readable in a standard format so that user agents can compare it with the user's stated privacy preferences and behave accordingly. GDPR could've easily standardized on an extension to P3P.
    - 5y ago
hash872 5y ago
Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't, and 'corporate leeches' and 'greedy bastards' is unnecessarily aggressive & uncharitable)- I don't think that littering every website on planet Earth with forced consent boxes is the right solution. They could've passed all of the other elements of GPDR and excluded the mandatory nag screens, they contribute nothing and make the world just a little bit of a worse place
- detaro 5y ago
  Indeed, the correct solution is not littering every website on planet Earth with tracking/unnecessary cookies.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > I don't think that littering every website on planet Earth with forced consent boxes is the right solution. The absolute vast majority of those boxes are illegal under GDPR. However you've been brainwashed into thinking it's the GDPRs fault. > They could've passed all of the other elements of GPDR and excluded the mandatory nag screens Those screens are not mandatory. It's literally: - you don't need to ask consent for data that is strictly necessary for the operation of your website - for any additional data you need to ask for consent with the default and clearly labeled option being "I do not consent" That is it. There's nothing mandatory about presenting you with "accept all 270 ad/analytics/data harvesting companies".
  - hash872 5y ago
    I've seen a lot of people make this claim, but I find it hard to believe that basically every website on Earth is violating GPDR with the nag screens (if they're so willing to break the law, why don't they just not have any popups at all?) And I also I find your explanation difficult to believe because nonprofits, government bodies, and various non-commercial websites (like someone's blog) that are not engaged in data harvesting are all just as aggressive about consent boxes. I think a more likely explanation is that every website on Earth, including all of the non-commercial ones who aren't doing data harvesting, find the law vague and feel like they need to have a consent screen just to make sure they don't get fined somehow

scarface74 5y ago

It’s more amazing that even though history has shown otherwise, every law that the government has ever passed has unintended consequences because 70 year old politicians don’t understand technology. They passed a 14 chapter 99 section law and all I got for it was fucking cookie banners all over the internet.

dmitriid 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659029
- scarface74 5y ago
  If the government passes a law that makes it worse for the people, it’s a bad law. See also the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc. Either it’s a bad law or a badly enforced law. Either way it shows the government’s general ineptness.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > If the government passes a law that makes it worse for the people, it’s a bad law. There's a very simple question I always ask people with "gdpr bad" stance. I've to receive an answer. What would be your solution to make companies from collecting your personal data without your consent? > See also the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc. Other government has initiatives being bad doesn't make all government initiatives bad. > Either it’s a bad law or a badly enforced law. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30659060
    - scarface74 5y ago
      > What would be your solution to make companies from collecting your personal data without your consent? I don’t have a solution to the drug problem either. But a “solution” that makes things worse for people is not a “solution”. The first goal of government should be “do no harm”.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > I don’t have a solution to the drug problem either. Because GDPR is war on drugs and not, say food inspection, right? > The first goal of government should be “do no harm”. Ah yes. Because it's the government that forces those web sites to collect and sell your data to literally hundreds of trackers and advertisers, right?
        scarface74 5y ago
        It’s the government law that made my web browsing experience worse just like it’s the government policy that makes it harder for me to get enough psuedophredrine for my family.

tonymet 5y ago

we already had “do not track”. if they enforced it, the dialogs would not have been necessary . dialogs we’re kept to draw attention to the law . billions of hours a day wasted

dmitriid 5y ago
> we already had “do not track”. if they enforced it, the dialogs would not have been necessary There's more to data harvesting than "do not track". And yes, DNT header was used... for browser fingerprinting. > dialogs we’re kept to draw attention to the law No. Dialogs are there to skirt the law (and the absolute vast majority of them are illegal), and to paint the law as this bad thing by clueless politicians that force the poor-poor websites to implement them. No, it doesn't, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30656321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30656321
- tonymet 5y ago
  leaders are responsible for outcomes, especially when they are entirely predictable
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > leaders are responsible for outcomes, especially when they are entirely predictable GDPR lists all the outcomes for such behaviour. What, in your opinion, should GPR have been to prevent this behaviour? And once again, you're not blaiming the leeches who couldn't care less about the law, or your data, or your consent.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > There's more to data harvesting than "do not track". P3P has been around forever and gives us the information that's today in consent dialogs, except machine readable in a standard format so that user agents can compare it with the user's stated privacy preferences and behave accordingly. GDPR could've easily standardized on an extension to P3P.
  - 5y ago

hash872 5y ago

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't, and 'corporate leeches' and 'greedy bastards' is unnecessarily aggressive & uncharitable)- I don't think that littering every website on planet Earth with forced consent boxes is the right solution. They could've passed all of the other elements of GPDR and excluded the mandatory nag screens, they contribute nothing and make the world just a little bit of a worse place

detaro 5y ago
Indeed, the correct solution is not littering every website on planet Earth with tracking/unnecessary cookies.
dmitriid 5y ago
> I don't think that littering every website on planet Earth with forced consent boxes is the right solution. The absolute vast majority of those boxes are illegal under GDPR. However you've been brainwashed into thinking it's the GDPRs fault. > They could've passed all of the other elements of GPDR and excluded the mandatory nag screens Those screens are not mandatory. It's literally: - you don't need to ask consent for data that is strictly necessary for the operation of your website - for any additional data you need to ask for consent with the default and clearly labeled option being "I do not consent" That is it. There's nothing mandatory about presenting you with "accept all 270 ad/analytics/data harvesting companies".
- hash872 5y ago
  I've seen a lot of people make this claim, but I find it hard to believe that basically every website on Earth is violating GPDR with the nag screens (if they're so willing to break the law, why don't they just not have any popups at all?) And I also I find your explanation difficult to believe because nonprofits, government bodies, and various non-commercial websites (like someone's blog) that are not engaged in data harvesting are all just as aggressive about consent boxes. I think a more likely explanation is that every website on Earth, including all of the non-commercial ones who aren't doing data harvesting, find the law vague and feel like they need to have a consent screen just to make sure they don't get fined somehow