3 ms·

The cookie regulation was designed to train people to "Agree" without reading. It was a prerequisite step for GDPR that was designed to legalise data collectio

The cookie regulation was designed to train people to "Agree" without reading. It was a prerequisite step for GDPR that was designed to legalise data collection and trading. Before GDPR it was a gray area, now companies can easily get consent as users mindlessly click "Agree" to data processing and selling and they have a legal basis to do so. These are corrupt laws, but most people blindly believe EU is good and totally not in bed with big corporations.

imiric 3y ago
> The cookie regulation was designed to train people to "Agree" without reading. That's a cynical take. In reality, companies took advantage of the loose technical language to do the least possible work to comply with the law, while doing their best to implement dark patterns to confuse the user into clicking "Agree". This is something that can be improved with stricter regulation, but it will always be a cat and mouse game. > It was a prerequisite step for GDPR that was designed to legalise data collection and trading. Another cynical, and also false, take. The GDPR wasn't "designed" for that. In fact, it actively tries to prevent it. An EU citizen can contact any company in the EU and demand to access all their personal data, or for it to be deleted. This is an unequivocal win for people to regain control over their personal information. Is this the best that governments can do? Certainly not. I'm still glad that at least something exists, and the tech industry is not entirely unregulated, as in most other parts of the world. > These are corrupt laws No. These laws are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the strong influence and rapid pace of development of the tech industry means that governments will always play catch up, even when they want to pass laws that protect their citizens. > most people blindly believe EU is good and totally not in bed with big corporations. Citation needed. Name me a government that is not in bed with Big <industry>. Big Tech in particular is in strong symbiosis with governments, as they both share some common goals. So, sure, there's that. And yet despite of it, the EU still passes laws that fight Big Tech's reach, and fines companies when they don't comply. Can it do better? Sure. But name me a government on Earth that does a better job at this than the EU. We don't need to get political here. But it's foolish to spew cynical takes when some governments are at least trying to fight Big Tech, and even more foolish to imply that their attempts are making things worse for its citizens.
akie 3y ago
You have clearly not seen the amount of people who click "deny all" or "only statistics". Before the GDPR _everyone_ had to accept _everything_ a website sent their way and didn't have a say in it, after the GDPR only 33% of people click "accept all" on the cookie banner for the fairly large e-commerce site I work at. If the goal of the GDPR was to train people to click "Agree" and to legalise data collection, then that law was an abject failure.
- varispeed 3y ago
  How do you know that only 33% click accept all if you are not meant to track those who deny? That said 33% of consent, legal to be sold is better than 100% of gray area. Before GDPR you didn't have explicit consent and you still could be on the hook for trading personal data. The system is working as intended.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > How do you know that only 33% click accept all if you are not meant to track those who deny? Without tracking it's easy to: a) compare the total number of visitors vs those who accepted tracking b) just increase a counter for each "No"

imiric 3y ago

> The cookie regulation was designed to train people to "Agree" without reading. That's a cynical take. In reality, companies took advantage of the loose technical language to do the least possible work to comply with the law, while doing their best to implement dark patterns to confuse the user into clicking "Agree". This is something that can be improved with stricter regulation, but it will always be a cat and mouse game. > It was a prerequisite step for GDPR that was designed to legalise data collection and trading. Another cynical, and also false, take. The GDPR wasn't "designed" for that. In fact, it actively tries to prevent it. An EU citizen can contact any company in the EU and demand to access all their personal data, or for it to be deleted. This is an unequivocal win for people to regain control over their personal information. Is this the best that governments can do? Certainly not. I'm still glad that at least something exists, and the tech industry is not entirely unregulated, as in most other parts of the world. > These are corrupt laws No. These laws are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the strong influence and rapid pace of development of the tech industry means that governments will always play catch up, even when they want to pass laws that protect their citizens. > most people blindly believe EU is good and totally not in bed with big corporations. Citation needed. Name me a government that is not in bed with Big <industry>. Big Tech in particular is in strong symbiosis with governments, as they both share some common goals. So, sure, there's that. And yet despite of it, the EU still passes laws that fight Big Tech's reach, and fines companies when they don't comply. Can it do better? Sure. But name me a government on Earth that does a better job at this than the EU. We don't need to get political here. But it's foolish to spew cynical takes when some governments are at least trying to fight Big Tech, and even more foolish to imply that their attempts are making things worse for its citizens.

akie 3y ago

You have clearly not seen the amount of people who click "deny all" or "only statistics". Before the GDPR _everyone_ had to accept _everything_ a website sent their way and didn't have a say in it, after the GDPR only 33% of people click "accept all" on the cookie banner for the fairly large e-commerce site I work at. If the goal of the GDPR was to train people to click "Agree" and to legalise data collection, then that law was an abject failure.

varispeed 3y ago
How do you know that only 33% click accept all if you are not meant to track those who deny? That said 33% of consent, legal to be sold is better than 100% of gray area. Before GDPR you didn't have explicit consent and you still could be on the hook for trading personal data. The system is working as intended.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > How do you know that only 33% click accept all if you are not meant to track those who deny? Without tracking it's easy to: a) compare the total number of visitors vs those who accepted tracking b) just increase a counter for each "No"