5 ms·

Exactly this. The law could have been written in such a way that we could use a browser setting and avoid incessent popups which irritate users and desensitise

by cbeach 3y ago

Exactly this. The law could have been written in such a way that we could use a browser setting and avoid incessent popups which irritate users and desensitise them to genuinely useful warnings. Whatever the good intentions of EU lawmakers, they seem inept at technical legislation because they ALLOW companies to continue doing shady things, and rather than tackle it, the legislators create a law that merely annoys users.

madsbuch 3y ago
it would be horrible regulation if you tell how to comply instead of telling what to comply with. as written elsewhere (since you obviously didn't read anything) your proposed solution would be just fine. But people opted out of impmenting it that way since it would yield less profit.
- cbeach 3y ago
  Show me the section of the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) or GDPR that implies the "Do Not Track" browser setting can override the need for consent banners / popups.
  - layer8 3y ago
    DNT wouldn't work, but a hypothetical "yes, please feel free to track me" setting would, if standardized by browser vendors and implemented appropriately (i.e. ensuring user consent).
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    well, if you respect the do not track setting and therefore DO NOT TRACK, then just remove the banner. You have not obligation to tell people that you do not track because you do not track.
    - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
      Are you 100% confident that you don’t do anything which could be construed as tracking by a hostile regulator? Even the official EU sites that host the relevant regulations have cookie banners, explaining (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/legal-notice/legal-notice.html?locale=en#5.%20Cookies%20notice https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/legal-notice/legal-notice....) that they can’t otherwise do basic analytics or interface persistence.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        Better safe than sorry... Absolutely. If you work with a company, where you cannot guarantee that no tracking will be injected into their users computers, then you better add the disclaimer. Also, if you feel certain, and a ready to defend in court, that practices you have on your website does not constitute tracking. Then you don't have to show the banner either. Personally, I am much more pragmatic about these regulations - with good reason. I still have to hear about some small innocent company hit with a massive fine. Empirically speaking, it is mostly huge multinational companies with plenty of resources to manage these things down into details who have gotten fines after repeat offences. All in all. If you assume malicious regulators, then it is going to be stressful to work in a market. From US influence, I also do understand the sentiment, though it is rarely mirrored with EU citizens who generally don't assume hostile regulation.
layer8 3y ago
The GDPR doesn't prohibit such a browser setting to exist and to be applied. The GDPR however also isn't a technical standard that would prescribe any specific technical protocol.
toyg 3y ago
> they ALLOW companies to continue doing shady things No they don't. But enforcement requires complaints, actions, and budgets. Remember that the EU has no police, it's down to national governments to enforce regulations. Also, take fraud. There are plenty of laws against fraud in any country - and still it happens every day in one way or another. That's not because all fraud laws are bad, but because enforcement is complex and costly.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> Whatever the good intentions of EU lawmakers, they seem inept at technical legislation I don't think that's a specialization of EU lawmakers, particularly. A far as I can recall, laemakers started thinking about internet regulation around the turn of the millenium, and I didn't welcome the prospect; I assumed that regulation would favour state intelligence and police agencies, and would be drafted by adtech lobbyists. Why? Because I didn't think the civil servants who are supposed to draft these laws had the requisite competence.

by cbeach 3y ago

madsbuch 3y ago

it would be horrible regulation if you tell how to comply instead of telling what to comply with. as written elsewhere (since you obviously didn't read anything) your proposed solution would be just fine. But people opted out of impmenting it that way since it would yield less profit.

cbeach 3y ago
Show me the section of the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) or GDPR that implies the "Do Not Track" browser setting can override the need for consent banners / popups.
- layer8 3y ago
  DNT wouldn't work, but a hypothetical "yes, please feel free to track me" setting would, if standardized by browser vendors and implemented appropriately (i.e. ensuring user consent).
- madsbuch 3y ago
  well, if you respect the do not track setting and therefore DO NOT TRACK, then just remove the banner. You have not obligation to tell people that you do not track because you do not track.
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    Are you 100% confident that you don’t do anything which could be construed as tracking by a hostile regulator? Even the official EU sites that host the relevant regulations have cookie banners, explaining (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/legal-notice/legal-notice.html?locale=en#5.%20Cookies%20notice https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/legal-notice/legal-notice....) that they can’t otherwise do basic analytics or interface persistence.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      Better safe than sorry... Absolutely. If you work with a company, where you cannot guarantee that no tracking will be injected into their users computers, then you better add the disclaimer. Also, if you feel certain, and a ready to defend in court, that practices you have on your website does not constitute tracking. Then you don't have to show the banner either. Personally, I am much more pragmatic about these regulations - with good reason. I still have to hear about some small innocent company hit with a massive fine. Empirically speaking, it is mostly huge multinational companies with plenty of resources to manage these things down into details who have gotten fines after repeat offences. All in all. If you assume malicious regulators, then it is going to be stressful to work in a market. From US influence, I also do understand the sentiment, though it is rarely mirrored with EU citizens who generally don't assume hostile regulation.

layer8 3y ago

The GDPR doesn't prohibit such a browser setting to exist and to be applied. The GDPR however also isn't a technical standard that would prescribe any specific technical protocol.

toyg 3y ago

> they ALLOW companies to continue doing shady things No they don't. But enforcement requires complaints, actions, and budgets. Remember that the EU has no police, it's down to national governments to enforce regulations. Also, take fraud. There are plenty of laws against fraud in any country - and still it happens every day in one way or another. That's not because all fraud laws are bad, but because enforcement is complex and costly.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> Whatever the good intentions of EU lawmakers, they seem inept at technical legislation I don't think that's a specialization of EU lawmakers, particularly. A far as I can recall, laemakers started thinking about internet regulation around the turn of the millenium, and I didn't welcome the prospect; I assumed that regulation would favour state intelligence and police agencies, and would be drafted by adtech lobbyists. Why? Because I didn't think the civil servants who are supposed to draft these laws had the requisite competence.