19 ms·

Your broad interpretation of the law is silly. 99% of the scripts sent to the browser are not required, we could just live in a text world. Privacy is about r

Your broad interpretation of the law is silly. 99% of the scripts sent to the browser are not required, we could just live in a text world. Privacy is about reporting information back to somebody or collecting information. A script running on the browser who does not consist of a privacy issue simply for running. You might have a case if the browser then sent back details. But we can use your same logic to say, Google has delivered scripts to the browser to ensure that the content that is to be delivered IS being delivered. In such advertisements are part of the content you requested to deliver. Your insane view of the wording of the law would mean 100% of every website that uses scripts to deliver its content are violating the law. Because zero scripts are required to make websites as they exist today. Conflating running a script your browser downloaded (that you told it to do) to a privacy issue is insane. If your insanity spreads to others you can basically say good buy to websites as we know it.

t0mas88 3y ago
No need to call it insane so many times, please keep things a bit more civilised. And maybe next time read the article before you continue to comment on it, because this is not my "insane view of the wording of the law". This is how the European Commission and the Irish privacy regulators (Google Europe is in Ireland) see it. Quoting straight from the article: > "In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification [..] Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher). The European Commission sent me a formal written response agreeing with my position that such activities would require consent." It's fine if you disagree with these laws, many people do. But it is how the law currently works as confirmed by the people that wrote the law as well as the agency that enforces it.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  Sorry thought I was on Blind. > In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification I don't think their opinion is law. The law is the law and until it is it is tested in the courts it is not illegal.

t0mas88 3y ago

No need to call it insane so many times, please keep things a bit more civilised. And maybe next time read the article before you continue to comment on it, because this is not my "insane view of the wording of the law". This is how the European Commission and the Irish privacy regulators (Google Europe is in Ireland) see it. Quoting straight from the article: > "In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification [..] Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher). The European Commission sent me a formal written response agreeing with my position that such activities would require consent." It's fine if you disagree with these laws, many people do. But it is how the law currently works as confirmed by the people that wrote the law as well as the agency that enforces it.

mbrumlow 3y ago
Sorry thought I was on Blind. > In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification I don't think their opinion is law. The law is the law and until it is it is tested in the courts it is not illegal.