5 ms·

>No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Given that you can completely block cookies and other tracking in the browser, why on eart

by JTbane 5y ago

>No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. Given that you can completely block cookies and other tracking in the browser, why on earth did they bother? I despise bureaucrats writing laws when they don't understand technology.

Ekaros 5y ago
On other hand there could be an extension that sends tracking history and everything else to everyone. If you really want to share that information.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Because cookies are useful functionality that should be used in our best interests, not to pad some corporation's bottom line via surveillance capitalism. We shouldn't have to block cookies or anything, they're the ones who have to stop creating software that is essentially malware.
kmeisthax 5y ago
I despise engineers writing code when they don't understand laws. Yes, we can play the tracker-removal cat-and-mouse game, but that involves a lot of time and effort, projected forever. This battle is going to be won by whoever has the most time and money to waste, and, spoiler alert: it's not the adblock vendors. It's Google. In the specific case of cookies, you need those to authenticate to web services, so you can't just block all of them. Instead you need to delicately allow or deny every cookie based on if it's purpose is holding a login token or tracking a user. In fact, sometimes it's both. Strictly speaking, if I log into Facebook, that shouldn't be considered consent to track. But right now, that's how it works. You know all those "login with Facebook" buttons all over the web? Those give Facebook third-party tracking capability. There is no browser extension in the world that will allow you to login with Facebook without also telling Facebook what site you were logging into. You need a law to force Facebook to split-brain themselves and silo off that data from their advertising operations. Yeah, sure. "Just don't use Login with Facebook". Except every third-party login system has this problem - and there are plenty of smaller companies that absolutely do not want to handle user credentials and require that you use a third-party login service. And given that using smaller providers are the easiest way to get your credentials stolen, it is entirely understandable and advisable that they not roll their own authentication. Furthermore, most users are not at all aware of all the technical stuff I mentioned above - and they shouldn't have to be in order to have privacy. Having a well-written law is a lot easier: you just tell Facebook, "no, really, if you use your login service to track people we're going to fine you". Corporations react to (sufficiently large) fines a lot more favorably than technical restrictions or circumvention. "Don't be evil" is a way bigger guarantee than "can't be evil".
- OminousWeapons 5y ago
  Preach! What we ultimately need is just a law that says it is illegal for companies to collect or store any data for marketing purposes, tracking, or resale. No opt ins, no exceptions. Unfortunately we can't fully kill targeted or unsolicited advertising at the root because of freedom of speech issues, but we can eliminate all the data it depends on.
  - jobs_throwaway 5y ago
    why do you dislike targeted advertising?
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      I really don't mind targeted advertising. One the ads are more relevant. Two because the ads are more relevant the advertiser makes far more money on them and therefore doesn't have to show you as many to fund their service.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      I think it's less the targeted advertising, and more like I can't take 5 internet steps today without 40 people shouting at me to buy their diapers because my partner googled "diapers" last night.
    - remram 5y ago
      People see "targeted advertising" as "I was thinking about buying a bike and it shows me ads for bikes", ie. it's showing me what I want to see. That is not targeted advertising. Targeted advertising is showing you what they want you to see when they want you to see it, or showing you the same products in a light that makes you more likely to buy them. For example, showing you unlikely or imagined bike-related problems, to sell you useless protection gear or insurance after you get your bike. Showing you ads for motorcycles, because although you probably don't want one, someone who already likes bikes is more likely to buy a (more expensive) motorcycle, so that's where they'll direct their spam. Targeted advertising is about manipulation, using knowledge of the customer to change their behavior. No one is going through those efforts to show you what you already want and save you a quick Google.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Given that you can completely block cookies" You can also hire oricate security to stop stalkers, and yet stalking is illegal
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Because GDPR has nothing to do with cookies. You can have cookies without consent. Tracking requires consent even if it doesn't use cookies. You can block some tracking in the browser, but server-side tracking generally can't be blocked. GDPR cares about whether you are tracking, not about the means you use to accomplish it.

by JTbane 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

On other hand there could be an extension that sends tracking history and everything else to everyone. If you really want to share that information.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Because cookies are useful functionality that should be used in our best interests, not to pad some corporation's bottom line via surveillance capitalism. We shouldn't have to block cookies or anything, they're the ones who have to stop creating software that is essentially malware.

kmeisthax 5y ago

I despise engineers writing code when they don't understand laws. Yes, we can play the tracker-removal cat-and-mouse game, but that involves a lot of time and effort, projected forever. This battle is going to be won by whoever has the most time and money to waste, and, spoiler alert: it's not the adblock vendors. It's Google. In the specific case of cookies, you need those to authenticate to web services, so you can't just block all of them. Instead you need to delicately allow or deny every cookie based on if it's purpose is holding a login token or tracking a user. In fact, sometimes it's both. Strictly speaking, if I log into Facebook, that shouldn't be considered consent to track. But right now, that's how it works. You know all those "login with Facebook" buttons all over the web? Those give Facebook third-party tracking capability. There is no browser extension in the world that will allow you to login with Facebook without also telling Facebook what site you were logging into. You need a law to force Facebook to split-brain themselves and silo off that data from their advertising operations. Yeah, sure. "Just don't use Login with Facebook". Except every third-party login system has this problem - and there are plenty of smaller companies that absolutely do not want to handle user credentials and require that you use a third-party login service. And given that using smaller providers are the easiest way to get your credentials stolen, it is entirely understandable and advisable that they not roll their own authentication. Furthermore, most users are not at all aware of all the technical stuff I mentioned above - and they shouldn't have to be in order to have privacy. Having a well-written law is a lot easier: you just tell Facebook, "no, really, if you use your login service to track people we're going to fine you". Corporations react to (sufficiently large) fines a lot more favorably than technical restrictions or circumvention. "Don't be evil" is a way bigger guarantee than "can't be evil".

OminousWeapons 5y ago
Preach! What we ultimately need is just a law that says it is illegal for companies to collect or store any data for marketing purposes, tracking, or resale. No opt ins, no exceptions. Unfortunately we can't fully kill targeted or unsolicited advertising at the root because of freedom of speech issues, but we can eliminate all the data it depends on.
- jobs_throwaway 5y ago
  why do you dislike targeted advertising?
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    I really don't mind targeted advertising. One the ads are more relevant. Two because the ads are more relevant the advertiser makes far more money on them and therefore doesn't have to show you as many to fund their service.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    I think it's less the targeted advertising, and more like I can't take 5 internet steps today without 40 people shouting at me to buy their diapers because my partner googled "diapers" last night.
  - remram 5y ago
    People see "targeted advertising" as "I was thinking about buying a bike and it shows me ads for bikes", ie. it's showing me what I want to see. That is not targeted advertising. Targeted advertising is showing you what they want you to see when they want you to see it, or showing you the same products in a light that makes you more likely to buy them. For example, showing you unlikely or imagined bike-related problems, to sell you useless protection gear or insurance after you get your bike. Showing you ads for motorcycles, because although you probably don't want one, someone who already likes bikes is more likely to buy a (more expensive) motorcycle, so that's where they'll direct their spam. Targeted advertising is about manipulation, using knowledge of the customer to change their behavior. No one is going through those efforts to show you what you already want and save you a quick Google.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Given that you can completely block cookies" You can also hire oricate security to stop stalkers, and yet stalking is illegal

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

Because GDPR has nothing to do with cookies. You can have cookies without consent. Tracking requires consent even if it doesn't use cookies. You can block some tracking in the browser, but server-side tracking generally can't be blocked. GDPR cares about whether you are tracking, not about the means you use to accomplish it.