3 ms·

Yep, and also the whole EU... Every few months, they either want to make encrpytion illegal, scan more private data, scan files on end user devices, outright ba

Yep, and also the whole EU... Every few months, they either want to make encrpytion illegal, scan more private data, scan files on end user devices, outright ban e2e encryption, or worse.

dmix 4y ago
And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. They are never geo-filtered either so everyone is forced to see them. I’m usually a big advocate for privacy and this was obviously done with good intentions but there were so many better ways to do it and I doubt 99% of people do anything but click okay without reading it. At least if the browsers did it the UI would be standardized and you could have default persistent settings. Now that there has been a massive effort to implement it I doubt it will ever get fixed or go away. Even though the decline of supercookies and Firefox’s new 3rd party policy has largely made it obsolete.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. I've never heard anybody who wasn't in or adjacent to the tech surveillance industry complain about this.
  - dmix 4y ago
    It probably had 0.01% effect on their profits so I don't see why they would be upset.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      >I don't see why they would be upset. Feigning ignorance. People in or adjacent to the tech surveillance industry (either working in it or having a substantial portion of their net worth invested in the industry) whine about cookie consents constantly, but nobody else gives a shit. Are you telling me that you have no financial or professional stake in the matter? You haven't worked for or invested in a company that profits from tracking people online? Nor any of your friends or family?
- cromka 4y ago
  > Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. https://oblador.github.io/hush/ https://oblador.github.io/hush/ You're welcome!
- bitofhope 4y ago
  >And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. No we can't. We can think of scummy adtech companies who feel entitled to their business model. The GDPR very specifically says that the option to decline tracking must be at least as easily accessible as the option to accept. The only way the EU is to blame for the pop-ups is that the regulation hasn't been enforced strictly enough.
  - 6510 4y ago
    If the cookies are needed for functionality the popup is not required.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Criminals will avoid laws, and lawmakers should write laws in a way that makes them hard to be avoided. If they asked anyone with atleast a minimal technical knowledge, they'd get a lot better solutions.
    - bitofhope 4y ago
      In this case the problem with GDPR is not how it's written but how it's enforced (or rather, how little it's enforced). Most of the cookie popups that appear while browsing are already blatant violations of the law, but the violators get away with them because the relevant authorities are overwhelmed/underfunded/dysfunctional. >If they asked anyone with atleast a minimal technical knowledge, they'd get a lot better solutions. This sentence implies that: (1) Nobody with even minimal technical knowledge was consulted when writing GDPR. (2) The problem of websites tracking their users can be solved through technical means. (3) One or more of the solutions are so trivial anyone with minimal technical knowledge could come up with them. I disagree with all of the above assertions.
- anyfoo 4y ago
  > And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. I don't understand this line of thinking. You are declining the cookies, so obviously you prefer not to be tracked. And it's obvious that it's not the EU who made the varying, annoying, and often purposely misleading dialog boxes to decline the cookies, but the companies who want to force their tracking on you. Without the EU law, they would just do it without asking for permission. So why blame the EU?
  - dmix 4y ago
    Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be? Would some design guidelines be helpful? Maybe but it's still fundamentally flawed and I doubt it'd be enforced. As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse). I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest. I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost. I get the impression people want this to be a good idea, because it sounds like one, instead of considering whether it is. Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
    - anyfoo 4y ago
      > Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be? "Of course burglars choosing less protected houses is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the makers of security systems be responsible? Who else would be?" I still don't get it. Without the EU laws, it wouldn't be magically easier to block tracking cookies, they wouldn't offer a choice at all? What are you arguing for? > As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse). We tried that, it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track > I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest. The cookies for functionality/session are not affected by the cookie popup. > I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost. I use an adblocker and still decline on the cookie popups. I assume you are doing, too, otherwise you wouldn't complain about popups you don't see? > Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups? Me able to decline them is real-world utility. If a majority or at least significant portion of users is successfully tricked into accepting the cookies, then that calls for a refinement of the law along with better enforcement, not for retraction of the law. "Let them have it", what a bleak, defeatist thing to suggest. You are blaming the makers of the law for what is very obviously the fault of the perpetrators, who are trying to get around the law in profoundly shady and just downright shitty ways. I am glad the EU law exists, without it there wouldn't even be the option.

Yep, and also the whole EU... Every few months, they either want to make encrpytion illegal, scan more private data, scan files on end user devices, outright ban e2e encryption, or worse.

dmix 4y ago

And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. They are never geo-filtered either so everyone is forced to see them. I’m usually a big advocate for privacy and this was obviously done with good intentions but there were so many better ways to do it and I doubt 99% of people do anything but click okay without reading it. At least if the browsers did it the UI would be standardized and you could have default persistent settings. Now that there has been a massive effort to implement it I doubt it will ever get fixed or go away. Even though the decline of supercookies and Firefox’s new 3rd party policy has largely made it obsolete.

robonerd 4y ago
> And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. I've never heard anybody who wasn't in or adjacent to the tech surveillance industry complain about this.
- dmix 4y ago
  It probably had 0.01% effect on their profits so I don't see why they would be upset.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    >I don't see why they would be upset. Feigning ignorance. People in or adjacent to the tech surveillance industry (either working in it or having a substantial portion of their net worth invested in the industry) whine about cookie consents constantly, but nobody else gives a shit. Are you telling me that you have no financial or professional stake in the matter? You haven't worked for or invested in a company that profits from tracking people online? Nor any of your friends or family?
cromka 4y ago
> Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. https://oblador.github.io/hush/ https://oblador.github.io/hush/ You're welcome!
bitofhope 4y ago
>And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. No we can't. We can think of scummy adtech companies who feel entitled to their business model. The GDPR very specifically says that the option to decline tracking must be at least as easily accessible as the option to accept. The only way the EU is to blame for the pop-ups is that the regulation hasn't been enforced strictly enough.
- 6510 4y ago
  If the cookies are needed for functionality the popup is not required.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Criminals will avoid laws, and lawmakers should write laws in a way that makes them hard to be avoided. If they asked anyone with atleast a minimal technical knowledge, they'd get a lot better solutions.
  - bitofhope 4y ago
    In this case the problem with GDPR is not how it's written but how it's enforced (or rather, how little it's enforced). Most of the cookie popups that appear while browsing are already blatant violations of the law, but the violators get away with them because the relevant authorities are overwhelmed/underfunded/dysfunctional. >If they asked anyone with atleast a minimal technical knowledge, they'd get a lot better solutions. This sentence implies that: (1) Nobody with even minimal technical knowledge was consulted when writing GDPR. (2) The problem of websites tracking their users can be solved through technical means. (3) One or more of the solutions are so trivial anyone with minimal technical knowledge could come up with them. I disagree with all of the above assertions.
anyfoo 4y ago
> And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. I don't understand this line of thinking. You are declining the cookies, so obviously you prefer not to be tracked. And it's obvious that it's not the EU who made the varying, annoying, and often purposely misleading dialog boxes to decline the cookies, but the companies who want to force their tracking on you. Without the EU law, they would just do it without asking for permission. So why blame the EU?
- dmix 4y ago
  Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be? Would some design guidelines be helpful? Maybe but it's still fundamentally flawed and I doubt it'd be enforced. As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse). I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest. I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost. I get the impression people want this to be a good idea, because it sounds like one, instead of considering whether it is. Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
  - anyfoo 4y ago
    > Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be? "Of course burglars choosing less protected houses is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the makers of security systems be responsible? Who else would be?" I still don't get it. Without the EU laws, it wouldn't be magically easier to block tracking cookies, they wouldn't offer a choice at all? What are you arguing for? > As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse). We tried that, it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track > I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest. The cookies for functionality/session are not affected by the cookie popup. > I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost. I use an adblocker and still decline on the cookie popups. I assume you are doing, too, otherwise you wouldn't complain about popups you don't see? > Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups? Me able to decline them is real-world utility. If a majority or at least significant portion of users is successfully tricked into accepting the cookies, then that calls for a refinement of the law along with better enforcement, not for retraction of the law. "Let them have it", what a bleak, defeatist thing to suggest. You are blaming the makers of the law for what is very obviously the fault of the perpetrators, who are trying to get around the law in profoundly shady and just downright shitty ways. I am glad the EU law exists, without it there wouldn't even be the option.