4 ms·

> Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Ah yes. "Companies are willingly flaunting the law, so the la

> Failure to consider the second-order effects of regulation causes the greatest harm to society. Ah yes. "Companies are willingly flaunting the law, so the law is bad" > Because of GDPR, consent to cookies must be freely given, specific, informed, and based on an explicit affirmative action. Indeed. So if you do ask for consent, there have to be two explicitly labeled buttons: "Agree", and "Disagree". How many of the greedy leeches siphoning user data are providing that? And how many are instead waiting how long they can get away with it before the regulators get to them? > The regulation does require it if you want to use cookies, and it's near impossible to code any useful page without storing state (cookies). Nope. This is a lie that has been sold to you buy the same greedy leeches that have sold you the lie that it is the GDPR that is bad, the GDPR that is requiring these bad cookie popups etc. First thing you could do is open the law (it's not that long and is not that complex) and try to find where cookies are mentioned. Hint: they are mentioned nowhere in the main body of text, and are only mentioned in one of the Recitals. However, you rely on the industry to tell you that the law is bad even if the industry is extremely interested in painting the law in a bad light. So. If the data you get/process/store is strictly required for the functioning of your business (whether it's for storing login info or a shopping cart, or because other laws say so as they do in the case of banks), consent is not required. If you get/process/store that data for any other reason, you must get a specific informed consent from the users. And no, pre-selected checkboxes, hiding "disagree/reject" behind fifteen clicks etc. is not it.

aeternum 4y ago
There are many ways to target cookies without saying 'cookies' directly. >If the data you get/process/store is strictly required for the functioning of your business This is also quite the oversimplification, by this logic Facebook/Google don't need any consent as that user data and ability to serve targeted ads is required for the business to function. It's also telling that the GDPR.EU website itself seems to flaunt the law with this: "We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it"
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > There are many ways to target cookies without saying 'cookies' directly. Because cookies are just one piece of data, and GDPR is, suprise, General Data Protection Regulation > This is also quite the oversimplification, by this logic Facebook/Google don't need any consent as that user data and ability to serve targeted ads is required for the business to function. It is an oversimplification that works in the vast majority of cases. Even if targeted ads are required, protection of user data is still required. And when pressed Meta and Google have to prove that they actually need, say, a full facial profile of every person on the planet to sell someone a haemorrhoids cream. > It's also telling that the GDPR.EU website itself seems to flaunt the law with this This is a good catch. I think they changed that in not-so-distant past. Things like this need to be called out and fixed. And not swept under the rug with a shrug and "the law is bad". That's exactly what happened before GDPR but without any visibility: every country had its own version of data protection laws, and all tech companies couldn't care less. Suddenly they care (and try to blame the law).

aeternum 4y ago

There are many ways to target cookies without saying 'cookies' directly. >If the data you get/process/store is strictly required for the functioning of your business This is also quite the oversimplification, by this logic Facebook/Google don't need any consent as that user data and ability to serve targeted ads is required for the business to function. It's also telling that the GDPR.EU website itself seems to flaunt the law with this: "We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it"

dmitriid 4y ago
> There are many ways to target cookies without saying 'cookies' directly. Because cookies are just one piece of data, and GDPR is, suprise, General Data Protection Regulation > This is also quite the oversimplification, by this logic Facebook/Google don't need any consent as that user data and ability to serve targeted ads is required for the business to function. It is an oversimplification that works in the vast majority of cases. Even if targeted ads are required, protection of user data is still required. And when pressed Meta and Google have to prove that they actually need, say, a full facial profile of every person on the planet to sell someone a haemorrhoids cream. > It's also telling that the GDPR.EU website itself seems to flaunt the law with this This is a good catch. I think they changed that in not-so-distant past. Things like this need to be called out and fixed. And not swept under the rug with a shrug and "the law is bad". That's exactly what happened before GDPR but without any visibility: every country had its own version of data protection laws, and all tech companies couldn't care less. Suddenly they care (and try to blame the law).