4 ms·

I would love to see EU companies like apple, fb, google and so on. Instead what I see is that the EU is just trying to regulate them, without having at least on

I would love to see EU companies like apple, fb, google and so on. Instead what I see is that the EU is just trying to regulate them, without having at least one champion in the same league. So maybe the laws are the reason that the EU is so far behind.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
Behind on tech companies, or forward in consumer rights?
- IMTDb 4y ago
  Behind in tech companies, forward in useless consumer nagging I am looking at you, EU cookie notice.
  - krageon 4y ago
    Please stop blaming these cookie notices on the law. The law clearly states no notice is required if no consent is required, but companies choose to annoy you.
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      The law - not the companies - explicitly forbids me from expressing my preferences globally at the browser level. I know exactly what I am ready to accept - and what I want to reject. The law says "you have to repeat your preferences individually for each and every domain, you cannot have a system that applies your preferences automatically to everyone" As a consequence I stand my ground: The law - not the companies - is nagging me.
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
        Please provide a source for this claim. The GDPR is intentionally technically non-specific to allow for a wide array of technical solutions. In fact one of the failures of DNT was its lack of regulatory backing, and its successor is specifically being designed to be a browser wide, GDPR compliant solution.
      - krageon 4y ago
        > The law [...] explicitly forbids me from expressing my preferences globally at the browser level. You are wrong. I have in fact read the law and if you think this you have not. Please do so if you are curious what it does in fact forbid, you can start here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e1374-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
        isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
        I think what they meant is that consent has to be informed and specific, and he wants to give uninformed consent to any and all data collection, or wants to never be asked for consent.
        krageon 4y ago
        I think (IANAL, but I have worked in this space with lawyers. Follow my advice at your own discretion, or rather please do not and ask a professional) a case could be made for global consent to be (broadly) appropriate, if your consent is indeed informed (i.e. the plugin asks you to read and understand what analytics cookies are, tracking cookies are and marketing cookies are). Of course, if your consent is "do to me what you want, even if it is an atrocity nobody has conceived of yet and I cannot be bothered to learn about", it is true that that cannot fall under such a requirement. Such consent would be meaningless and such a statement fundamentally indicative of what I can only term an extremely self-destructive frame of mind. I don't think that needs to be tolerated at this level, because it is not good for society to see this as anything but a problem.
        IMTDb 4y ago
        I think you have read the wrong law and I have have read the right one, as the cookie handling requirements are defined in the ePrivacy Directive of 2002 and amended in 2009, not the GDPR. You can start here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02002L0058-20091219&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... You will discover under section (17), that the lawmaker does - in fact - force everyone to give specific and informed consent. Which means that each and every website has to provide me a wall of informative text and a specific button to click. Aka: nag me. I am not allowed to give a blanket "accept all" or "reject all" or "accept analytics, reject marketing" consent for all websites as this would be categorised as "uninformed and unspecific" consent, which is illegal. So the EU is responsible.
krageon 4y ago
I see it as the US government doing nothing to modulate the behaviour of the bullies it produces in companies, mostly because that is it's own foreign policy also. You are complaining about other countries not liking US corporate policy, which while a very US citizen thing to do simply is not very relevant. These corporations must be raised properly and reminded that they too have to follow the law, or they will do to the whole world what they have already done to the US. Nobody outside of the US is looking for such a society, so it makes sense to take as much action as is required to prevent it.
rtsil 4y ago
To give but one example, the EU had a Youtube rival, Dailymotion, which was doing quite fine, until Google bought Youtube and used its immense power to artificially sustain it despite its massive losses. Youtube didn't prevail because of innovation or competitivity, but because of the massive weight thrown around by Google as a conglomerate. The same thing would happen with Spotify right now, if it's not protected. Amazon, Apple and Google don't need music to make money, they don't need to be competitive in that sector to sustain their music activity, they can just use their quasi-monopoly in other sectors to kill all the other players.
- ksec 4y ago
  On the last part, I don’t think there are any thing inherently wrong when a bigger player is applying massive pressure. Such as the mentioned need of earning money from the those services. What I have a problem is certain most righteous company on the planet are claiming Spotify as evil because they paid less to labels / singers etc.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago

Behind on tech companies, or forward in consumer rights?

IMTDb 4y ago
Behind in tech companies, forward in useless consumer nagging I am looking at you, EU cookie notice.
- krageon 4y ago
  Please stop blaming these cookie notices on the law. The law clearly states no notice is required if no consent is required, but companies choose to annoy you.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    The law - not the companies - explicitly forbids me from expressing my preferences globally at the browser level. I know exactly what I am ready to accept - and what I want to reject. The law says "you have to repeat your preferences individually for each and every domain, you cannot have a system that applies your preferences automatically to everyone" As a consequence I stand my ground: The law - not the companies - is nagging me.
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
      Please provide a source for this claim. The GDPR is intentionally technically non-specific to allow for a wide array of technical solutions. In fact one of the failures of DNT was its lack of regulatory backing, and its successor is specifically being designed to be a browser wide, GDPR compliant solution.
    - krageon 4y ago
      > The law [...] explicitly forbids me from expressing my preferences globally at the browser level. You are wrong. I have in fact read the law and if you think this you have not. Please do so if you are curious what it does in fact forbid, you can start here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e1374-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
      - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
        I think what they meant is that consent has to be informed and specific, and he wants to give uninformed consent to any and all data collection, or wants to never be asked for consent.
        krageon 4y ago
        I think (IANAL, but I have worked in this space with lawyers. Follow my advice at your own discretion, or rather please do not and ask a professional) a case could be made for global consent to be (broadly) appropriate, if your consent is indeed informed (i.e. the plugin asks you to read and understand what analytics cookies are, tracking cookies are and marketing cookies are). Of course, if your consent is "do to me what you want, even if it is an atrocity nobody has conceived of yet and I cannot be bothered to learn about", it is true that that cannot fall under such a requirement. Such consent would be meaningless and such a statement fundamentally indicative of what I can only term an extremely self-destructive frame of mind. I don't think that needs to be tolerated at this level, because it is not good for society to see this as anything but a problem.
      - IMTDb 4y ago
        I think you have read the wrong law and I have have read the right one, as the cookie handling requirements are defined in the ePrivacy Directive of 2002 and amended in 2009, not the GDPR. You can start here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02002L0058-20091219&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... You will discover under section (17), that the lawmaker does - in fact - force everyone to give specific and informed consent. Which means that each and every website has to provide me a wall of informative text and a specific button to click. Aka: nag me. I am not allowed to give a blanket "accept all" or "reject all" or "accept analytics, reject marketing" consent for all websites as this would be categorised as "uninformed and unspecific" consent, which is illegal. So the EU is responsible.

krageon 4y ago

I see it as the US government doing nothing to modulate the behaviour of the bullies it produces in companies, mostly because that is it's own foreign policy also. You are complaining about other countries not liking US corporate policy, which while a very US citizen thing to do simply is not very relevant. These corporations must be raised properly and reminded that they too have to follow the law, or they will do to the whole world what they have already done to the US. Nobody outside of the US is looking for such a society, so it makes sense to take as much action as is required to prevent it.

rtsil 4y ago

To give but one example, the EU had a Youtube rival, Dailymotion, which was doing quite fine, until Google bought Youtube and used its immense power to artificially sustain it despite its massive losses. Youtube didn't prevail because of innovation or competitivity, but because of the massive weight thrown around by Google as a conglomerate. The same thing would happen with Spotify right now, if it's not protected. Amazon, Apple and Google don't need music to make money, they don't need to be competitive in that sector to sustain their music activity, they can just use their quasi-monopoly in other sectors to kill all the other players.

ksec 4y ago
On the last part, I don’t think there are any thing inherently wrong when a bigger player is applying massive pressure. Such as the mentioned need of earning money from the those services. What I have a problem is certain most righteous company on the planet are claiming Spotify as evil because they paid less to labels / singers etc.