3 ms·

Companies would just change the checkbox from “I acknowledge the privacy policy” to “I grant you this license”.

hysan 4y ago
I posit that that would make a huge difference in the public. Most people I know, both technical and non-technical, don’t realize such nuances until put in direct laymen’s terms when seeing anything legal related. It’s why companies use dark patterns and vague language around accepting TOSes, EULAs, etc.
- comte7092 4y ago
  The problem isn’t the awareness so much so as who has leverage. Even people who are aware they are giving up their information are often willing to do so since they know the only alternative is to go without such service all together.
advisedwang 4y ago
You could just say that requiring a license to use data for purposes that aren't essential to running the service is forbidden, similar to GDPR. The GDPR pop-ups are annoying, but you can genuinely collection of data now.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Consent pop-ups are more appropriately described as "surveillance industry pop-ups" rather than GDPR popups. The GDPR doesn't require nagging someone for consent to process data necessary for the service (otherwise the requests to even show those dialogs would be illegal). Rather the surveillance industry is trying to trick you into giving your consent to use your information for their own non-necessary purposes.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    This is pointless word-smithing to get out of being blamed for consequences. These popups exist because of GDPR requiring them, they’re GDPR popups. GDPR is the prop65 of privacy, and there was no chance of any other result.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > GDPR is the prop65 of privacy, and there was no chance of any other result. If this is true, then why do the pop-up dialogs have meaningful choices? And if the dialogs are the fault of the GDPR, why does there exist GDPR-compliant websites without the pop-up dialogs? You can levy your criticism at the earlier Cookie Law, for its failing to anticipate its nullifcation via terms of adhesion and general lack of technical aptitude. But the GDPR addressed those flaws.
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago
        > why do the pop-up dialogs have meaningful choices? Very few of them do. Typically it’s “accept” and “x”. > why does there exist GDPR-compliant websites without the pop-up dialogs? Because GDPR doesn’t make those other sites have them. It’s perfectly possible for GDPR to force some websites to have popups and not force others to. It’s still GDPR forcing the ones that it forces to do the thing it’s forcing them to do. > But the GDPR addressed those flaws. As you can clearly see from being on the internet for more than about 5 minutes, it in fact does not. This is not a comment on GDPR one way or the other; my point is that we shouldn’t engage in political word games to try and avoid the inevitable consequences of actions.
        mindslight 4y ago
        It's not word games, rather it depends on your starting perspective. If you believe in the right of individuals to be generally left alone, then the surveillance industry was aggressing before the GDPR. So surveillance companies adding a nag screen in an attempt to continue surveilling you isn't a fault of the GDPR, rather it's due to their own malicious compliance. They could have also chosen to just respect individuals privacy rather than attempting to ignore the law with a nag wall. The general fallacy with the rest of your argument is that you're pointing to imperfect enforcement as a reason to indict the law. This is essentially defeatism and acceptance of whatever might be commercially lucrative.

I posit that that would make a huge difference in the public. Most people I know, both technical and non-technical, don’t realize such nuances until put in direct laymen’s terms when seeing anything legal related. It’s why companies use dark patterns and vague language around accepting TOSes, EULAs, etc.

comte7092 4y ago
The problem isn’t the awareness so much so as who has leverage. Even people who are aware they are giving up their information are often willing to do so since they know the only alternative is to go without such service all together.

advisedwang 4y ago

You could just say that requiring a license to use data for purposes that aren't essential to running the service is forbidden, similar to GDPR. The GDPR pop-ups are annoying, but you can genuinely collection of data now.

mindslight 4y ago
Consent pop-ups are more appropriately described as "surveillance industry pop-ups" rather than GDPR popups. The GDPR doesn't require nagging someone for consent to process data necessary for the service (otherwise the requests to even show those dialogs would be illegal). Rather the surveillance industry is trying to trick you into giving your consent to use your information for their own non-necessary purposes.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  This is pointless word-smithing to get out of being blamed for consequences. These popups exist because of GDPR requiring them, they’re GDPR popups. GDPR is the prop65 of privacy, and there was no chance of any other result.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > GDPR is the prop65 of privacy, and there was no chance of any other result. If this is true, then why do the pop-up dialogs have meaningful choices? And if the dialogs are the fault of the GDPR, why does there exist GDPR-compliant websites without the pop-up dialogs? You can levy your criticism at the earlier Cookie Law, for its failing to anticipate its nullifcation via terms of adhesion and general lack of technical aptitude. But the GDPR addressed those flaws.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      > why do the pop-up dialogs have meaningful choices? Very few of them do. Typically it’s “accept” and “x”. > why does there exist GDPR-compliant websites without the pop-up dialogs? Because GDPR doesn’t make those other sites have them. It’s perfectly possible for GDPR to force some websites to have popups and not force others to. It’s still GDPR forcing the ones that it forces to do the thing it’s forcing them to do. > But the GDPR addressed those flaws. As you can clearly see from being on the internet for more than about 5 minutes, it in fact does not. This is not a comment on GDPR one way or the other; my point is that we shouldn’t engage in political word games to try and avoid the inevitable consequences of actions.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        It's not word games, rather it depends on your starting perspective. If you believe in the right of individuals to be generally left alone, then the surveillance industry was aggressing before the GDPR. So surveillance companies adding a nag screen in an attempt to continue surveilling you isn't a fault of the GDPR, rather it's due to their own malicious compliance. They could have also chosen to just respect individuals privacy rather than attempting to ignore the law with a nag wall. The general fallacy with the rest of your argument is that you're pointing to imperfect enforcement as a reason to indict the law. This is essentially defeatism and acceptance of whatever might be commercially lucrative.