4 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37093420 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37093420 "So far a small number of women have been fined (€38 in Cannes -

by jakear 3y ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37093420 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37093420 "So far a small number of women have been fined (€38 in Cannes - £33; $43) for wearing a burkini on the beach at Cannes." What an awful place to live. I was commenting with a friend the other day who was claiming the old "food in Europe is better for you because they have more regulations". I countered that they also have the most regulations about all the ways a website has to harass you with absolutely Zero (0) legitimate justification, so why should we expect their food regulations to be any better founded? He seemed to find that line of reasoning well founded.

mrguyorama 3y ago
>regulations about all the ways a website has to harass you For the hundredth time, the regulations do NOT tell companies to harass you. They do that to make you angry at the laws that prevent them from data harvesting you to the extent they do in the US. It's that simple. You can comply with GDPR and the cookies law 100% without ever asking the user anything. If a website is asking you for consent for anything, they're trying to treat you as cattle they can harvest data from for sale. That's the only reason. That or utterly incompetent lawyers.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  It's more common that they're using the data themselves for tracking (product suggestions, advertising), selling it isn't as common for most sites. These 3rd party publisher websites don't usually harvest enough data to make it worth selling. Usually, they're the ones buying data to enrich their tracking set
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    But that data isn't necessary to run their business, hence the restrictions on doing so. It really really really isn't hard to comply with these rules without asking the user for consent, all you have to do is not collect everything you can about them. Any website who asks you about cookies or tracking thinks they are collecting more information about you than they need to do their work. Meanwhile the EU has signaled through lax enforcement that they aren't interested in going after anyone but the largest players, and seemingly more for recovering lost tax than shutting down their data collection. There is no justification for the cookie and tracking prompts. By definition, they are direct evidence of a website trying to track you in ways they aren't allowed.
    - jakear 3y ago
      Try opening https://www.lemonde.fr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/, then try opening https://www.lemonde.fr/en https://www.lemonde.fr/en. Which is a miserable experience with a ton of added hassle that provides you 0 actual benefit, and which is a normal website that gives you the information you want and gets out of the damn way? Also fun fact: just navigating to https://www.lemonde.fr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/ already sets the cookies (which don't matter at all and are a 100% non-issue to everyone else in the world) without you interacting with the popup at all. All in all a complete shit show. Kids of today will never know what it's like to go to a website and just. see. content.
- jakear 3y ago
  In some platonic wet dream, perhaps. In the real world, the user experience on basically every website degraded significantly, and the preexisting tools to solve the supposed problem better than they could have (clearing all cookies on session termination) just makes things worse. So they broke the real fix, made life worse for everyone, and made people much more willing to "Accept" whatever is asked of them so they can just move on with their damn life. Also, never underestimate the ability of lawyers to be utterly incompetent.
hk__2 3y ago
> "So far a small number of women have been fined (€38 in Cannes - £33; $43) for wearing a burkini on the beach at Cannes." That was illegal and the city has been forced to reimburse the people it fined. https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/arret-anti-burkini-la-ville-de-cannes-condamnee-a-rembourser-une-amende-19-06-2018-2228632_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/arret-anti-burkini-la-ville-d...
- jakear 3y ago
  Ok, still the folks were religiouslly harassed then and maybe getting some money back years later doesn't change that. And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkini-ban-pools-upheld-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkin...
  - hk__2 3y ago
    The decree has been overthrown after two days. That it took years to get the €11 back is another issue. > And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. There’s no point here; for hygiene reasons you are required to wear clothes close to the body in public swimming pools. As I wrote in another comment, this is a law from 1981, while the burkini was only invented in 2004. You are free to wear religious clothing (some do), but it has to respect the basic hygiene measures.
    - jakear 3y ago
      A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. (Off the top of my head: offer certified-clean burkinis for rent.) A precinct where tradition prevails over reason would find "ah-ha!" gotchas from over 40 years ago as justification for their inherit sexism/racism and refuse to budge on them (so long as only the "inferior" race/gender/religion is affected).
      - 3y ago

by jakear 3y ago

mrguyorama 3y ago

>regulations about all the ways a website has to harass you For the hundredth time, the regulations do NOT tell companies to harass you. They do that to make you angry at the laws that prevent them from data harvesting you to the extent they do in the US. It's that simple. You can comply with GDPR and the cookies law 100% without ever asking the user anything. If a website is asking you for consent for anything, they're trying to treat you as cattle they can harvest data from for sale. That's the only reason. That or utterly incompetent lawyers.

shortrounddev2 3y ago
It's more common that they're using the data themselves for tracking (product suggestions, advertising), selling it isn't as common for most sites. These 3rd party publisher websites don't usually harvest enough data to make it worth selling. Usually, they're the ones buying data to enrich their tracking set
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  But that data isn't necessary to run their business, hence the restrictions on doing so. It really really really isn't hard to comply with these rules without asking the user for consent, all you have to do is not collect everything you can about them. Any website who asks you about cookies or tracking thinks they are collecting more information about you than they need to do their work. Meanwhile the EU has signaled through lax enforcement that they aren't interested in going after anyone but the largest players, and seemingly more for recovering lost tax than shutting down their data collection. There is no justification for the cookie and tracking prompts. By definition, they are direct evidence of a website trying to track you in ways they aren't allowed.
  - jakear 3y ago
    Try opening https://www.lemonde.fr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/, then try opening https://www.lemonde.fr/en https://www.lemonde.fr/en. Which is a miserable experience with a ton of added hassle that provides you 0 actual benefit, and which is a normal website that gives you the information you want and gets out of the damn way? Also fun fact: just navigating to https://www.lemonde.fr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/ already sets the cookies (which don't matter at all and are a 100% non-issue to everyone else in the world) without you interacting with the popup at all. All in all a complete shit show. Kids of today will never know what it's like to go to a website and just. see. content.
jakear 3y ago
In some platonic wet dream, perhaps. In the real world, the user experience on basically every website degraded significantly, and the preexisting tools to solve the supposed problem better than they could have (clearing all cookies on session termination) just makes things worse. So they broke the real fix, made life worse for everyone, and made people much more willing to "Accept" whatever is asked of them so they can just move on with their damn life. Also, never underestimate the ability of lawyers to be utterly incompetent.

hk__2 3y ago

> "So far a small number of women have been fined (€38 in Cannes - £33; $43) for wearing a burkini on the beach at Cannes." That was illegal and the city has been forced to reimburse the people it fined. https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/arret-anti-burkini-la-ville-de-cannes-condamnee-a-rembourser-une-amende-19-06-2018-2228632_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/arret-anti-burkini-la-ville-d...

jakear 3y ago
Ok, still the folks were religiouslly harassed then and maybe getting some money back years later doesn't change that. And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkini-ban-pools-upheld-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkin...
- hk__2 3y ago
  The decree has been overthrown after two days. That it took years to get the €11 back is another issue. > And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. There’s no point here; for hygiene reasons you are required to wear clothes close to the body in public swimming pools. As I wrote in another comment, this is a law from 1981, while the burkini was only invented in 2004. You are free to wear religious clothing (some do), but it has to respect the basic hygiene measures.
  - jakear 3y ago
    A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. (Off the top of my head: offer certified-clean burkinis for rent.) A precinct where tradition prevails over reason would find "ah-ha!" gotchas from over 40 years ago as justification for their inherit sexism/racism and refuse to budge on them (so long as only the "inferior" race/gender/religion is affected).
    - 3y ago