4 ms·

On the other hand, given that the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise, perhaps it's better if the US not mirror that law. There

On the other hand, given that the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise, perhaps it's better if the US not mirror that law. There are probably good parts of it that can be lifted, but it may tilt too hard in the direction of personal ownership of other people's perception of you. In any case, we can be confident that nothing will pass at the Federal level that would make credit scores illegal.

mindslight 4y ago
The GDPR is not "the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise". Rather, those banners arose from malicious compliance by companies protesting the earlier EU cookie law, and you've seemingly fallen for the ruse. Furthermore, the GDPR fixed the loophole that made this malicious compliance technically legal. So the only take away from your point is that enforcing regulations on large companies suffers from incompleteness, which is obvious. Your assertion that the GDPR affects "personal ownership of other people's perception of you" is blatantly false. From the GDPR: "2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: ... (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity". It explicitly excepts regulating personal activity, and instead focuses on commercial activity - ie companies. Companies do not have some inherent right to keep surveillance records on individuals. And this often referenced idea that company behavior is merely individual behavior scaled up is utterly fallacious, starting with the fact that companies are formed precisely to shield liability by diffusing responsibility. And sure, the corporate lobby is extremely powerful in the US, so I agree I'm dreaming to think that any law would ever hamper the credit surveillance bureaus - they already bought their regulatory capture with the indemnifying "Fair" Credit Reporting Act. But still if we're talking about what ought to be, then a law that would allow me to opt out of their keeping surveillance records on me is sorely needed. I for one would be happy to live without them.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > those banners arose from malicious compliance The consequences of malicious compliance must be considered for every law passed. That's fundamental to the process of law, because humans react to incentives and are often selfish (or at least, self-focused). There was very little carrot attached to the law and plenty of stick, so people pushing right up to the edge of what the law allows was completely anticipated. Can't blame people with goals opposed to the law for legally bending the law to reach those goals. I like thinking about what ought to be, but I sure get burned too often by people passing laws in that direction who haven't paid sufficient thought to what is.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I agree that the cookie law was a terrible law, written by tech-ignorant politicians who reached for a naive solution - one that already existed as a configuration option in web browsers. Malicious compliance within the letter of the law should be anticipated, yes. But malicious noncompliance is still illegal, like these GDPR-inspired faux-consent popups. The framing of consent in the GDPR is precisely because of how the cookie law played out. I find it curious that your nick is "shadowgovt", yet you're arguing against attempting to regulate a shadow government. Are you like a shadow government enthusiast or something?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Check my profile, it's a reference to a song. The crux of the song is shadow governments do not exist. It's just people doing their best with the incentives before them.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Ah, the irony of music lyrics explains the inversion. (TMBG has always been in sort of a blind spot for me.) FWIW you can hand wave away the existence of overt governments with the same rationale. Identifying and naming emergent structures is how we make sense of the chaos.
theptip 4y ago
> the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise I didn't think this was true off the top of my head, and a quick dig supports that: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ The GDPR doesn't have anything to say about cookies, aside from that they count as Personal Data. (It's quite readable, you can verify this for yourself: https://gdpr-info.eu/ https://gdpr-info.eu/). GDPR is about what happens to the data you share with a company, what they are allowed to do with it, who they are allowed to share it with, what your rights to delete that data are, and what the penalties should be if they leak/misuse your data.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Because cookies count as personal data (which is pretty strange by itself... data the client stores that the server hands it is personal?), The need to gather consent to store cookies on your machine became suddenly ubiquitous, and rather than cease to store them (which should have been a ridiculous expectation on its face... What, every website on the planet was going to audit how the cookies are used? Nobody's spending that money, and you can't just remove them without risking breaking some flow), companies went with the shortest path to continuing their current practices with no major changes, which was to pop a banner asking for your consent. That outcome should have been obvious and the fact that it wasn't does not inspire confidence in the people making these laws.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

mindslight 4y ago

The GDPR is not "the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise". Rather, those banners arose from malicious compliance by companies protesting the earlier EU cookie law, and you've seemingly fallen for the ruse. Furthermore, the GDPR fixed the loophole that made this malicious compliance technically legal. So the only take away from your point is that enforcing regulations on large companies suffers from incompleteness, which is obvious. Your assertion that the GDPR affects "personal ownership of other people's perception of you" is blatantly false. From the GDPR: "2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: ... (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity". It explicitly excepts regulating personal activity, and instead focuses on commercial activity - ie companies. Companies do not have some inherent right to keep surveillance records on individuals. And this often referenced idea that company behavior is merely individual behavior scaled up is utterly fallacious, starting with the fact that companies are formed precisely to shield liability by diffusing responsibility. And sure, the corporate lobby is extremely powerful in the US, so I agree I'm dreaming to think that any law would ever hamper the credit surveillance bureaus - they already bought their regulatory capture with the indemnifying "Fair" Credit Reporting Act. But still if we're talking about what ought to be, then a law that would allow me to opt out of their keeping surveillance records on me is sorely needed. I for one would be happy to live without them.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> those banners arose from malicious compliance The consequences of malicious compliance must be considered for every law passed. That's fundamental to the process of law, because humans react to incentives and are often selfish (or at least, self-focused). There was very little carrot attached to the law and plenty of stick, so people pushing right up to the edge of what the law allows was completely anticipated. Can't blame people with goals opposed to the law for legally bending the law to reach those goals. I like thinking about what ought to be, but I sure get burned too often by people passing laws in that direction who haven't paid sufficient thought to what is.
- mindslight 4y ago
  I agree that the cookie law was a terrible law, written by tech-ignorant politicians who reached for a naive solution - one that already existed as a configuration option in web browsers. Malicious compliance within the letter of the law should be anticipated, yes. But malicious noncompliance is still illegal, like these GDPR-inspired faux-consent popups. The framing of consent in the GDPR is precisely because of how the cookie law played out. I find it curious that your nick is "shadowgovt", yet you're arguing against attempting to regulate a shadow government. Are you like a shadow government enthusiast or something?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Check my profile, it's a reference to a song. The crux of the song is shadow governments do not exist. It's just people doing their best with the incentives before them.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Ah, the irony of music lyrics explains the inversion. (TMBG has always been in sort of a blind spot for me.) FWIW you can hand wave away the existence of overt governments with the same rationale. Identifying and naming emergent structures is how we make sense of the chaos.

theptip 4y ago

> the GDPR is the source of the now-near-ubiquitous cookie-consent noise I didn't think this was true off the top of my head, and a quick dig supports that: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ The GDPR doesn't have anything to say about cookies, aside from that they count as Personal Data. (It's quite readable, you can verify this for yourself: https://gdpr-info.eu/ https://gdpr-info.eu/). GDPR is about what happens to the data you share with a company, what they are allowed to do with it, who they are allowed to share it with, what your rights to delete that data are, and what the penalties should be if they leak/misuse your data.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Because cookies count as personal data (which is pretty strange by itself... data the client stores that the server hands it is personal?), The need to gather consent to store cookies on your machine became suddenly ubiquitous, and rather than cease to store them (which should have been a ridiculous expectation on its face... What, every website on the planet was going to audit how the cookies are used? Nobody's spending that money, and you can't just remove them without risking breaking some flow), companies went with the shortest path to continuing their current practices with no major changes, which was to pop a banner asking for your consent. That outcome should have been obvious and the fact that it wasn't does not inspire confidence in the people making these laws.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]