2 ms·

Fact of the matter is that the comment we’re both party-to displays some fundamental misunderstandings of the law. You may call it “playing guessing games,” bu

Fact of the matter is that the comment we’re both party-to displays some fundamental misunderstandings of the law. You may call it “playing guessing games,” but to those with domain-specific knowledge, glaring errors with respect to fundamental legal concepts are obvious and indicates a lack of expertise (e.g. here, not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction of their named laws to the soundness of their argument) and a possible violation of the law (though the present situation does not rise to that level). Calling out false expertise is part of the self-regulating nature of the professions, even if doing so can be reasonably called “be[ing] a… asshole.” I think it’s worse to mislead people.

dmitriid 4y ago
Demagoguery. There are no "fundamental legal concepts are obvious" that require a cookie pop-up. > not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about. > I think it’s worse to mislead people. That's exactly what you're doing.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  Look, superficially I could list out ICO, IITA, AAPPI, and a host of other privacy and cookie-related laws and legal bodies. Anyone with Google can do that and it’s not really an indicator of expertise because listing things doesn’t mean I understand their content or their consequences. Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe. What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Look, superficially I could list out ICO, IITA, AAPPI, and a host of other privacy and cookie-related laws and legal bodies. Anyone with Google can do that Yes, you could. No, you didn't. > Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe. This is what you said: " I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation" So no, you didn't make references to Europe, and you continued to vaguely describe some vague unknown jurisdictions. > What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point? That's a question to you, really. I've said my piece here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633 You could, of course, respond by pointing out legal frameworks or laws where the discussed cookie banner is actually required. And yet, here we are, in a pointless thread where you've pointed out none.

dmitriid 4y ago

Demagoguery. There are no "fundamental legal concepts are obvious" that require a cookie pop-up. > not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about. > I think it’s worse to mislead people. That's exactly what you're doing.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
Look, superficially I could list out ICO, IITA, AAPPI, and a host of other privacy and cookie-related laws and legal bodies. Anyone with Google can do that and it’s not really an indicator of expertise because listing things doesn’t mean I understand their content or their consequences. Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe. What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Look, superficially I could list out ICO, IITA, AAPPI, and a host of other privacy and cookie-related laws and legal bodies. Anyone with Google can do that Yes, you could. No, you didn't. > Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe. This is what you said: " I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation" So no, you didn't make references to Europe, and you continued to vaguely describe some vague unknown jurisdictions. > What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point? That's a question to you, really. I've said my piece here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633 You could, of course, respond by pointing out legal frameworks or laws where the discussed cookie banner is actually required. And yet, here we are, in a pointless thread where you've pointed out none.