3 ms·
> 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,
by 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 agoleaders 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.
- dmitriid 5y ago> GDPR could've easily standardized on an extension to P3P. GDPR isn't just about websites. It covers collection of personally identifiable information in general. So it applies to apps, games, your physical interactions with various companies etc.