6 ms·

>So stop blaming "the EU" and ask yourself if this is the internet we want. ...Yes, thats exactly the internet "we" want. I don't get why it so hard to accept

>So stop blaming "the EU" and ask yourself if this is the internet we want. ...Yes, thats exactly the internet "we" want. I don't get why it so hard to accept that people simply dgaf about privacy, and much prefer free products online paid for by ads. And there is nothing wrong with that, because for those that actually care about privacy, there are plenty of tools.

germanier 4y ago
It's hard to accept because many, many people won't agree with you and do give a fuck.
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  To anyone that doesn't agree with me, please show me your rooted android phone that has no popular apps installed that collect any data, and doesn't use a sim card. Because if you say you give a fuck about privacy, and use a modern android phone with OEM rom or an iPhone, you either don't understand what privacy is and shouldn't be talking about it in the first place, or you are a hypocrite.
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    Someone can give a fuck about privacy in the areas they can, while not going overboard or trying too hard, you know. what you are describing is no true Scotsman nonsense. “You dgaf about privacy unless you wear a balaclava all the time”. It’s also possible they understand the trade off with privacy wrt, say, google and their isps/mobile providers, versus the trade off with random websites on the internet.
    - ActorNightly 4y ago
      There is no "areas" here. What you do online is tracked if you use windows, mac os on laptop or phone, or android. Who is tracking that is irrelevant. Claiming that its ok that Apple gets your data, a company who literally allowed the iCloud photo hacks to happen, but not 3d party advertisers is like olympic level mental gymnastics.
      - piaste 4y ago
        > Who is tracking that is irrelevant. It is absolutely relevant; it is arguably the most relevant question. It lies at the basis of the entire concept of "threat model" in security. The police wants to track you to investigate you as a suspect in a crime. Facebook wants to track you to know who you are talking to. Amazon wants to track you to learn what you might want to buy. The Chinese government wants to track you to know if you might work for or against it. And so on. I, like most people, give wildly different amounts of shit about every single one of these agents, and take different levels of precautions as a result.
        ActorNightly 4y ago
        I don't buy the argument that you don't want Amazon or Facebook to track you, but you are ok with Apple or Google tracking you. In case its not clear, because Im really doubting that people have a good grasp of privacy here, when you buy an Iphone, it phones home quite a bit collecting pieces of data about you that Apple can and does use internally for their advertising purposes, and you cannot opt out of it.
        scrollaway 4y ago
        You don't have to buy it, I'm gonna give it to you for free: I don't want Facebook tracking me, because I don't like them and don't trust them. OTOH I don't care if Google tracks me because I am an actively paying user of Google on a contract. I also don't care if Apple tracks me because they have a much cleaner track record.
  - germanier 4y ago
    I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could probably enter with a heavy kick. Modern society enables miracles.
    - ActorNightly 4y ago
      A more applicable analogy is that you want to have locks on your door to prevent unwanted visitors, but the people that built the building have a master key that they can come in whenever they want, take pictures, install cameras/microphones. But thats ok, because they are the only ones that are collecting data, and they say they are "privacy-first". But thanks for proving the part of "not understanding what privacy is" part of my post.
      - germanier 4y ago
        I have given my landlord a key recently so that he can check the smoke alarm and take the water meter reading while I'm at work. I trust that he didn't install a hidden camera even though nothing could have stopped him apart from "being a decent human being" and "not wanting to commit a crime". Not every protection needs to on a technological level. I'd rather live in a society where we have other tools available than one where I have to take each and every matter into my own hand. This is what my analogy showed.
        ActorNightly 4y ago
        Your analogies are really poor. Not only do you not you understand the level to which Apple or Google or your carrier can read the things you do on your devices, and how little control you have over that, but you are ignoring things like the big celebrity iCloud hacks. For the sake of not playing an analogy war, let me just say this: if you use a modern device with OS made by Microsoft, Google or Apple (or derivative of), you are implicitly consenting to very large amount of personal data collection, which you have no control over. If you choose to trust those entities for whatever reason, thats totally fine, but your particular selection of trust isn't "correct" in the sense that it should apply to everyone, because it has no concrete objective basis. And therefore, you shouldn't base what you think the law should be on it.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    It all depends on your assumed threat model, but also not conflating privacy and security, but remembering that compromised privacy may also compromise security. Not everybody's requirements are the same.
- Myrmornis 4y ago
  When you say "many, many" I take that to mean "a substantial proportion" and I think you may be making the mistake of estimating your proportions from the population of people in tech forums, rather than from the global population of internet users.
  - germanier 4y ago
    I know next to nothing about the "global population of internet users". I know a fair bit about the EU population and I can assure you that it's a very substantial proportion.
    - Myrmornis 4y ago
      I still suspect your sample is heavily biased towards university-educated / middle class people.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Yet here we are. People know what facebook is and still use it.
malermeister 4y ago
It's not the internet I want. I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. I'm part of the EU electorate. Are you?
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  >I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. Neither do I, but prove to me that this actually happens. Namely the surveillance part with online trackers.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    Here ya go: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/how-facebook-ad-tracking-and-targeting-works.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/how-facebook-ad-tracking-and...
Varqu 4y ago
I don't understand why it isn't solved in this way: You get a banner on your first visit, with a list "here are all the cookies and ways how we use your data, if you are not fine with it, please leave this website" This should be an option for small private websites (different rules for FB, Google and alike), because no one forces you to use a site, same as "my house, my rules"
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  Because that is very explicitly illegal. Consent to harvest personal data that isn't necessary for pure access to the site must not be used as a condition of access.
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  This would be explicitly forbidden by GDPR. You either don’t serve EU customers or allow them to opt out/in. You can’t degrade or deny service based on consent.
  - signatoremo 4y ago
    So what is the difference between “all cookies” and “essential cookies”?
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  The issue is that there is too much money to be left on the table advertising wise, so instead you are going to see every way to get around anything GDPR that is going to progressively shit up the internet. In the end, you can be tracked without cookies using fingerprinting, and AI will make this job easier and easier. So the banner is pretty much irrelevant technologically. You will also see companies that make popular browsers include features in the browsers for advertising purposes that will make cookies irrelevant - i.e you give consent otherwise the browser doesn't work at all or on websites with relevant content. Best thing to do is really just to let it all go IMO. Its really not a big deal. Between things like VPN and all the privacy tweaking you can do in Firefox, if someone wants privacy they can have it.
raverbashing 4y ago
Ah yes, the "internet we want", where Ad geniuses will spam you for the same thing you just bought off Amazon and mobile sites turning your phone into a hand warmer with all the ad crap they have to load and all the 3rd party cookies they add
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  And yet, before GDPR, when all of this was happening, those sites still saw increase in visitors and still made money, because people learned to ignore the ads since the design of the core website was pretty good and ads were not obtrusive to user experience.
  - piaste 4y ago
    "Hey, people used to put up with that shit" isn't exactly a winning argument.
    - ActorNightly 4y ago
      No the winning argument is that GDPR does nothing to protect the people, therefore its pointless.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    I'd say "way before GDPR" we had a local maximum with the initial AdWords experience, where those ads were pretty unobtrusive and there was limited .js spam "They still made money" sure, on top of externalities. And now they realize, with some help from Apple and Chrome that this business model has a limit
  - orwin 4y ago
    And yet, before the FDA was allowed to regulate baby food, baby food producers in the US saw increase in buyers and still made money with their product with arsonic and lead content above dangerous threeshold for adults. Those new regulation will probably increase the price of baby food, and people obvisouly didn't care about the heavy metal content, so why regulate at all?
sacado2 4y ago
Some people dgaf. They are free to click on "I agree with everything." Some people do gaf. They are free to click on "I don't agree with non-legitimate use of my data." Those who don't want to submit to these simple rules are free to not do business with EU citizens at all. Everybody's free. EU is the new land of Freedom it seems.
goodpoint 4y ago
> thats exactly the internet "we" want This is not how civilized society works. Taken individually, people don't care about a million things, yet regulators have to take care of those things on behalf of everybody else. Just because you don't understand the ramifications of something it does not mean nobody else understands it.
- ActorNightly 4y ago
  Taking care of those things would involve an actual solution that works, which would require people understanding the technical aspects of the problem, which would require those type of people running for office and getting elected. When that happens, then we can talk about responsible governance in this regard. GDPR was a direct response to Trump campaign shenanigans, as a tool for politicians to capitalize on appearing to be better than US. It had nothing to do with protecting people. If GDPR outlawed 3d party tracking outright, then you would have half an argument.
  - germanier 4y ago
    The Cambridge Analytica scandal was broken two years after the GDPR passed. It has been in the works long before Trump announced his campaign.
    - ActorNightly 4y ago
      I may be wrong on this, but according to wiki, date adopted was 2016, and date implemented was 2018, not sure what those things mean. I remember it being big news back in 2018, riding off the back of the CA scandal that it could help to prevent in the future. Regardless, if I am wrong about this, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really do anything for the people.
belorn 4y ago
As long it is an informed consent that people don't care about privacy. Uninformed consent is the tricky part. Medicine has to constantly deal with that a lot of people that dgaf about what medicine or brand of medicine is given to treat a specific illness. They just want to get better. Is there something wrong with doctors that just don't inform or get consent? Patients that actually care about specific medicines can look it up.

germanier 4y ago

It's hard to accept because many, many people won't agree with you and do give a fuck.

ActorNightly 4y ago
To anyone that doesn't agree with me, please show me your rooted android phone that has no popular apps installed that collect any data, and doesn't use a sim card. Because if you say you give a fuck about privacy, and use a modern android phone with OEM rom or an iPhone, you either don't understand what privacy is and shouldn't be talking about it in the first place, or you are a hypocrite.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Someone can give a fuck about privacy in the areas they can, while not going overboard or trying too hard, you know. what you are describing is no true Scotsman nonsense. “You dgaf about privacy unless you wear a balaclava all the time”. It’s also possible they understand the trade off with privacy wrt, say, google and their isps/mobile providers, versus the trade off with random websites on the internet.
  - ActorNightly 4y ago
    There is no "areas" here. What you do online is tracked if you use windows, mac os on laptop or phone, or android. Who is tracking that is irrelevant. Claiming that its ok that Apple gets your data, a company who literally allowed the iCloud photo hacks to happen, but not 3d party advertisers is like olympic level mental gymnastics.
    - piaste 4y ago
      > Who is tracking that is irrelevant. It is absolutely relevant; it is arguably the most relevant question. It lies at the basis of the entire concept of "threat model" in security. The police wants to track you to investigate you as a suspect in a crime. Facebook wants to track you to know who you are talking to. Amazon wants to track you to learn what you might want to buy. The Chinese government wants to track you to know if you might work for or against it. And so on. I, like most people, give wildly different amounts of shit about every single one of these agents, and take different levels of precautions as a result.
      - ActorNightly 4y ago
        I don't buy the argument that you don't want Amazon or Facebook to track you, but you are ok with Apple or Google tracking you. In case its not clear, because Im really doubting that people have a good grasp of privacy here, when you buy an Iphone, it phones home quite a bit collecting pieces of data about you that Apple can and does use internally for their advertising purposes, and you cannot opt out of it.
        scrollaway 4y ago
        You don't have to buy it, I'm gonna give it to you for free: I don't want Facebook tracking me, because I don't like them and don't trust them. OTOH I don't care if Google tracks me because I am an actively paying user of Google on a contract. I also don't care if Apple tracks me because they have a much cleaner track record.
- germanier 4y ago
  I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could probably enter with a heavy kick. Modern society enables miracles.
  - ActorNightly 4y ago
    A more applicable analogy is that you want to have locks on your door to prevent unwanted visitors, but the people that built the building have a master key that they can come in whenever they want, take pictures, install cameras/microphones. But thats ok, because they are the only ones that are collecting data, and they say they are "privacy-first". But thanks for proving the part of "not understanding what privacy is" part of my post.
    - germanier 4y ago
      I have given my landlord a key recently so that he can check the smoke alarm and take the water meter reading while I'm at work. I trust that he didn't install a hidden camera even though nothing could have stopped him apart from "being a decent human being" and "not wanting to commit a crime". Not every protection needs to on a technological level. I'd rather live in a society where we have other tools available than one where I have to take each and every matter into my own hand. This is what my analogy showed.
      - ActorNightly 4y ago
        Your analogies are really poor. Not only do you not you understand the level to which Apple or Google or your carrier can read the things you do on your devices, and how little control you have over that, but you are ignoring things like the big celebrity iCloud hacks. For the sake of not playing an analogy war, let me just say this: if you use a modern device with OS made by Microsoft, Google or Apple (or derivative of), you are implicitly consenting to very large amount of personal data collection, which you have no control over. If you choose to trust those entities for whatever reason, thats totally fine, but your particular selection of trust isn't "correct" in the sense that it should apply to everyone, because it has no concrete objective basis. And therefore, you shouldn't base what you think the law should be on it.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  It all depends on your assumed threat model, but also not conflating privacy and security, but remembering that compromised privacy may also compromise security. Not everybody's requirements are the same.
Myrmornis 4y ago
When you say "many, many" I take that to mean "a substantial proportion" and I think you may be making the mistake of estimating your proportions from the population of people in tech forums, rather than from the global population of internet users.
- germanier 4y ago
  I know next to nothing about the "global population of internet users". I know a fair bit about the EU population and I can assure you that it's a very substantial proportion.
  - Myrmornis 4y ago
    I still suspect your sample is heavily biased towards university-educated / middle class people.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Yet here we are. People know what facebook is and still use it.

malermeister 4y ago

It's not the internet I want. I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. I'm part of the EU electorate. Are you?

ActorNightly 4y ago
>I don't want surveillance capitalism manipulating society so they buy more shit. Neither do I, but prove to me that this actually happens. Namely the surveillance part with online trackers.
- malermeister 4y ago
  Here ya go: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/how-facebook-ad-tracking-and-targeting-works.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/how-facebook-ad-tracking-and...

Varqu 4y ago

I don't understand why it isn't solved in this way: You get a banner on your first visit, with a list "here are all the cookies and ways how we use your data, if you are not fine with it, please leave this website" This should be an option for small private websites (different rules for FB, Google and alike), because no one forces you to use a site, same as "my house, my rules"

mnw21cam 4y ago
Because that is very explicitly illegal. Consent to harvest personal data that isn't necessary for pure access to the site must not be used as a condition of access.
jnsaff2 4y ago
This would be explicitly forbidden by GDPR. You either don’t serve EU customers or allow them to opt out/in. You can’t degrade or deny service based on consent.
- signatoremo 4y ago
  So what is the difference between “all cookies” and “essential cookies”?
ActorNightly 4y ago
The issue is that there is too much money to be left on the table advertising wise, so instead you are going to see every way to get around anything GDPR that is going to progressively shit up the internet. In the end, you can be tracked without cookies using fingerprinting, and AI will make this job easier and easier. So the banner is pretty much irrelevant technologically. You will also see companies that make popular browsers include features in the browsers for advertising purposes that will make cookies irrelevant - i.e you give consent otherwise the browser doesn't work at all or on websites with relevant content. Best thing to do is really just to let it all go IMO. Its really not a big deal. Between things like VPN and all the privacy tweaking you can do in Firefox, if someone wants privacy they can have it.

raverbashing 4y ago

Ah yes, the "internet we want", where Ad geniuses will spam you for the same thing you just bought off Amazon and mobile sites turning your phone into a hand warmer with all the ad crap they have to load and all the 3rd party cookies they add

ActorNightly 4y ago
And yet, before GDPR, when all of this was happening, those sites still saw increase in visitors and still made money, because people learned to ignore the ads since the design of the core website was pretty good and ads were not obtrusive to user experience.
- piaste 4y ago
  "Hey, people used to put up with that shit" isn't exactly a winning argument.
  - ActorNightly 4y ago
    No the winning argument is that GDPR does nothing to protect the people, therefore its pointless.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  I'd say "way before GDPR" we had a local maximum with the initial AdWords experience, where those ads were pretty unobtrusive and there was limited .js spam "They still made money" sure, on top of externalities. And now they realize, with some help from Apple and Chrome that this business model has a limit
- orwin 4y ago
  And yet, before the FDA was allowed to regulate baby food, baby food producers in the US saw increase in buyers and still made money with their product with arsonic and lead content above dangerous threeshold for adults. Those new regulation will probably increase the price of baby food, and people obvisouly didn't care about the heavy metal content, so why regulate at all?

sacado2 4y ago

Some people dgaf. They are free to click on "I agree with everything." Some people do gaf. They are free to click on "I don't agree with non-legitimate use of my data." Those who don't want to submit to these simple rules are free to not do business with EU citizens at all. Everybody's free. EU is the new land of Freedom it seems.

goodpoint 4y ago

> thats exactly the internet "we" want This is not how civilized society works. Taken individually, people don't care about a million things, yet regulators have to take care of those things on behalf of everybody else. Just because you don't understand the ramifications of something it does not mean nobody else understands it.

ActorNightly 4y ago
Taking care of those things would involve an actual solution that works, which would require people understanding the technical aspects of the problem, which would require those type of people running for office and getting elected. When that happens, then we can talk about responsible governance in this regard. GDPR was a direct response to Trump campaign shenanigans, as a tool for politicians to capitalize on appearing to be better than US. It had nothing to do with protecting people. If GDPR outlawed 3d party tracking outright, then you would have half an argument.
- germanier 4y ago
  The Cambridge Analytica scandal was broken two years after the GDPR passed. It has been in the works long before Trump announced his campaign.
  - ActorNightly 4y ago
    I may be wrong on this, but according to wiki, date adopted was 2016, and date implemented was 2018, not sure what those things mean. I remember it being big news back in 2018, riding off the back of the CA scandal that it could help to prevent in the future. Regardless, if I am wrong about this, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really do anything for the people.

belorn 4y ago

As long it is an informed consent that people don't care about privacy. Uninformed consent is the tricky part. Medicine has to constantly deal with that a lot of people that dgaf about what medicine or brand of medicine is given to treat a specific illness. They just want to get better. Is there something wrong with doctors that just don't inform or get consent? Patients that actually care about specific medicines can look it up.