2 ms·
> Do they genuinely have a mindset that nothing is worth trying if it failed the first time? No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely im
by LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
> Do they genuinely have a mindset that nothing is worth trying if it failed the first time?
No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely impossible to make work. Don't decide on a mechanism, like cookies, and fixate on it without regard for practicality or effectiveness.
Preventing invisible tracking is probably a good goal that's worth iterating on but making sites pop up a list of good and bad tracking and being allowed to track the people who accidentally don't click "No!" seems like an entirely failed way to go about this.
If tracking is bad then stop it for everyone, not just people who clicked the correct thing. If some tracking is generally bad but allowable for certain functionality then mandate that tracking is only applied once the user had opted in, etc. Don't make users mark "Don't steal my organs while I sleep" on the hotel paperwork.
- clnq 3y ago> No. But the way you first picked to do the thing is very likely impossible to make work. Don't decide on a mechanism, like cookies, and fixate on it without regard for practicality or effectiveness. GDPR is not about cookies. Cookies are mentioned only once in the entire legal text as an example of a technology that can be used to associate users with personally identifiable data. If there is no risk for this association, GDPR does not care about cookies. GDPR is about ethically acquiring and handling personal data.