3 ms·

> I'm just hoping the EU doesn't decide we need another annoying pop-up or something. We've got enough of those already. It didn't. The website operators decid

> I'm just hoping the EU doesn't decide we need another annoying pop-up or something. We've got enough of those already. It didn't. The website operators decided to be a pain towards their customers so they can continue to track the hell out of them. They could just, you know, not do that.

microtonal 3y ago
100% this. Though in the end they'll only end up hurting themselves, because if it doesn't work, I would not be surprised if the GDPR gets updated to require opt-out by default without any user action and opt-in as an explicit action.
- hugi 3y ago
  Seconded. I find it absolutely amazing that people try to paint the EU in a bad light for obliging web sites to let their users know they're being tracked. I'm grateful that I'm protected by institutions that work for the people, not for the corporations.
lloeki 3y ago
Yup, it merely surfaces all the bad actors out there that were previously unseen (except on your CPU/network/flamegraph) I mean when one pushes me a banner with a clear CTA to accept everything and an intractable rat's nest of dark patterns to reject anything then I clearly and unambiguously know which side of the line they stand. IOW GDPR works as expected.
weberer 3y ago
>They could just, you know, not do that. Would you rather take a 50% pay cut, or slightly annoy somebody else? Because that's essentially the choices they're giving companies. They should have 100% seen through this, and made the do-not-track header enforceable. Legislators actively chose not to though.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Browsers could have implemented something that was compatible and sent the header accordingly, but they didn't. It's not the government's fault this is the way the industry implemented the law.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Browsers did implement that. Do Not Track header. It was immediately used by the industry to track users
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      They didn't implement it, otherwise I would see a browser-level popup instead of a nasty dark-patterns modal on websites. The do-not-track header (at least at places I worked) were generally respected, going so far as to completely disable analytics for those users. However, this is not active consent ... so, no browsers did not implement this.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > They didn't implement it They literally did. It was shipped in all major browsers. It was even shipped in IE 9. It's still being shipped in most browsers. Though it's now deprecated and Safari removed it because it was, guess what, used as a fingerprinting variable. > I would see a browser-level popup instead of a nasty dark-patterns modal on websites. No, no you wouldn't. If industry at large cared about user privacy, they would actually come together and agreed on such a popup. And in the absence of such a popup they wouldn't come up with the plethora of dark patterns they now blame on the EU. As is, they used DNT for fingerprinting, and employed dark patterns when asked (quite nicely, but in no uncertain terms) not to track users and not to sell their data without users' consent. > The do-not-track header (at least at places I worked) were generally respected, going so far as to completely disable analytics for those users. There are places where you didn't work. And they couldn't care less about user privacy, or user preferences. It's very likely that the same very places you worked at now offer a "we care about your privacy, here's 1922 partners that build a profile on you, accept".

microtonal 3y ago

100% this. Though in the end they'll only end up hurting themselves, because if it doesn't work, I would not be surprised if the GDPR gets updated to require opt-out by default without any user action and opt-in as an explicit action.

hugi 3y ago
Seconded. I find it absolutely amazing that people try to paint the EU in a bad light for obliging web sites to let their users know they're being tracked. I'm grateful that I'm protected by institutions that work for the people, not for the corporations.

lloeki 3y ago

Yup, it merely surfaces all the bad actors out there that were previously unseen (except on your CPU/network/flamegraph) I mean when one pushes me a banner with a clear CTA to accept everything and an intractable rat's nest of dark patterns to reject anything then I clearly and unambiguously know which side of the line they stand. IOW GDPR works as expected.

weberer 3y ago

>They could just, you know, not do that. Would you rather take a 50% pay cut, or slightly annoy somebody else? Because that's essentially the choices they're giving companies. They should have 100% seen through this, and made the do-not-track header enforceable. Legislators actively chose not to though.

withinboredom 3y ago
Browsers could have implemented something that was compatible and sent the header accordingly, but they didn't. It's not the government's fault this is the way the industry implemented the law.
- troupo 3y ago
  Browsers did implement that. Do Not Track header. It was immediately used by the industry to track users
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    They didn't implement it, otherwise I would see a browser-level popup instead of a nasty dark-patterns modal on websites. The do-not-track header (at least at places I worked) were generally respected, going so far as to completely disable analytics for those users. However, this is not active consent ... so, no browsers did not implement this.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > They didn't implement it They literally did. It was shipped in all major browsers. It was even shipped in IE 9. It's still being shipped in most browsers. Though it's now deprecated and Safari removed it because it was, guess what, used as a fingerprinting variable. > I would see a browser-level popup instead of a nasty dark-patterns modal on websites. No, no you wouldn't. If industry at large cared about user privacy, they would actually come together and agreed on such a popup. And in the absence of such a popup they wouldn't come up with the plethora of dark patterns they now blame on the EU. As is, they used DNT for fingerprinting, and employed dark patterns when asked (quite nicely, but in no uncertain terms) not to track users and not to sell their data without users' consent. > The do-not-track header (at least at places I worked) were generally respected, going so far as to completely disable analytics for those users. There are places where you didn't work. And they couldn't care less about user privacy, or user preferences. It's very likely that the same very places you worked at now offer a "we care about your privacy, here's 1922 partners that build a profile on you, accept".