4 ms·

Well, active consent has been seen before with cookie banners. Let's see how long it takes before every time you open Instagram you get a prompt like: "I allow

Well, active consent has been seen before with cookie banners. Let's see how long it takes before every time you open Instagram you get a prompt like: "I allow not not omitting the usage of tracking"

entropie 4y ago
Simple solution. Don't open instagram.
- kaapipo 4y ago
  And how is this helpful? Is this a solution? What if the app-in-question was a different one? Not using Instagram at that would be very helpful, indeed...
  - entropie 4y ago
    I don't understand. There are webpages/apps that track you and now you have to accept that they track you before using it. That has nothing to do with instagram - if I don't want to be tracked, I don't use the software. Right? Simple solution.
  - jamiequint 4y ago
    Of course it's a solution. The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. If you don't like it then don't use the app, nobody is forcing you to and you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business.
    - berkes 4y ago
      > you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business. Actually, we do. It's called democracy and how laws are made that companies have to adhere to.
      - stickfigure 4y ago
        Democracy has jurisdictional limitations. Good luck extraditing company owners/managers for the crime of "didn't display a cookie banner".
        berkes 4y ago
        It's done all the time. And a reason why e.g. in the US or EU sites, domains, accounts and whatnots will be blocked or frozen for CP, whereas that (type of) CP may be legal in the place where the distributor is based. While that's an entire different scale as "didn't display cookie banner" the mechanisms are the same and in place. If the EU finds privacy infringement important enough the infringer will be warned than fined[1]. I'm no lawyer, but I would expect that when a company doesn't pay that fine, they'll ultimately be prohibited from doing any business in the EU. e.g. through blocks, frozen accounts and such. [1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/enforcement-and-sanctions/sanctions/what-if-my-companyorganisation-fails-comply-data-protection-rules_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
        Nextgrid 4y ago
        Fortunately for us, Facebook voluntarily opened subsidiaries in EU countries so extradition is not necessary!
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
      > The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. The key point here being "comply with". "Let me track you or you can't use this", confusing or coercive "consent" dialogs etc. don't comply.
      - jamiequint 4y ago
        "let me track you or you can't use this" ought to be well within the law. The idea that is isn't is pretty insane government overreach. The disclosure should be clear and obvious, but it should also be the right of two parties to enter into such an agreement without the interference of the federal government.
ttul 4y ago
Cookie banners have sapped 3% off global GDP.
- ttul 4y ago
  Obviously this is satire.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    Though wouldn't surprise. However, if it would be the case, I would probably attribute it the fact that GDP is a low quality metric (though potentially the best we have?) As in: If a rich woman marries her housekeeper and he does the previous things as a part of the marriage, the total production is the same with a lowered GDP.
LelouBil 4y ago
Cookie banners that make refusing harder than accepting are not GDPR compliant I think.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  Correct, but the lack of enforcement means almost everyone does it, almost everyone gets away with it, and the ones that see everyone else doing it and getting away with it feel compelled doing the same...

Well, active consent has been seen before with cookie banners. Let's see how long it takes before every time you open Instagram you get a prompt like: "I allow not not omitting the usage of tracking"

entropie 4y ago

Simple solution. Don't open instagram.

kaapipo 4y ago
And how is this helpful? Is this a solution? What if the app-in-question was a different one? Not using Instagram at that would be very helpful, indeed...
- entropie 4y ago
  I don't understand. There are webpages/apps that track you and now you have to accept that they track you before using it. That has nothing to do with instagram - if I don't want to be tracked, I don't use the software. Right? Simple solution.
- jamiequint 4y ago
  Of course it's a solution. The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. If you don't like it then don't use the app, nobody is forcing you to and you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business.
  - berkes 4y ago
    > you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business. Actually, we do. It's called democracy and how laws are made that companies have to adhere to.
    - stickfigure 4y ago
      Democracy has jurisdictional limitations. Good luck extraditing company owners/managers for the crime of "didn't display a cookie banner".
      - berkes 4y ago
        It's done all the time. And a reason why e.g. in the US or EU sites, domains, accounts and whatnots will be blocked or frozen for CP, whereas that (type of) CP may be legal in the place where the distributor is based. While that's an entire different scale as "didn't display cookie banner" the mechanisms are the same and in place. If the EU finds privacy infringement important enough the infringer will be warned than fined[1]. I'm no lawyer, but I would expect that when a company doesn't pay that fine, they'll ultimately be prohibited from doing any business in the EU. e.g. through blocks, frozen accounts and such. [1] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/enforcement-and-sanctions/sanctions/what-if-my-companyorganisation-fails-comply-data-protection-rules_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        Fortunately for us, Facebook voluntarily opened subsidiaries in EU countries so extradition is not necessary!
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
    > The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. The key point here being "comply with". "Let me track you or you can't use this", confusing or coercive "consent" dialogs etc. don't comply.
    - jamiequint 4y ago
      "let me track you or you can't use this" ought to be well within the law. The idea that is isn't is pretty insane government overreach. The disclosure should be clear and obvious, but it should also be the right of two parties to enter into such an agreement without the interference of the federal government.

ttul 4y ago

Cookie banners have sapped 3% off global GDP.

ttul 4y ago
Obviously this is satire.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  Though wouldn't surprise. However, if it would be the case, I would probably attribute it the fact that GDP is a low quality metric (though potentially the best we have?) As in: If a rich woman marries her housekeeper and he does the previous things as a part of the marriage, the total production is the same with a lowered GDP.

LelouBil 4y ago

Cookie banners that make refusing harder than accepting are not GDPR compliant I think.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
Correct, but the lack of enforcement means almost everyone does it, almost everyone gets away with it, and the ones that see everyone else doing it and getting away with it feel compelled doing the same...