3 ms·

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 bu

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).