4 ms·
It looks like they basically created an immutable identifier that gets exposed. Sort of like a persistent third party cookie, but with fewer access controls as
by hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
It looks like they basically created an immutable identifier that gets exposed. Sort of like a persistent third party cookie, but with fewer access controls as it isn’t domain bound.
That’s just my read of the article, I haven’t reviewed the code myself.
However, I will say that the way SV companies tend to operate is they refuse to do any compliance work until forced by circumstance, then they have to do a rush job and a bunch of stuff gets fucked up that would have been fine if they planned ahead based on statutory requirement.
So from a human/corporate behavior perspective this is exactly what I’d expect.
Likewise, Apple in particular has a holier than thou attitude, especially in regards to privacy, so I think there’s a bit of them being blinded by their own arrogance in this case.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- eastbound 2y agoSweet, UE can now legitimately take 4% of Apple’s global income for uniquely identifying all users on Earth, having undeletable cookies and not having the cookie banter and thus, breaking GDPR.
- ykonstant 2y ago>the cookie banter brilliant
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoHaving worked in this sector for a very long time I just don’t think GDPR is an effective regulatory tool. Primarily because Ireland is a regulatory/tax haven for American companies and they have to enforce GDPR…and they refuse to. Whereas DMA was written to totally avoid that problem; so I think a DMA action is WAY more likely as the Irish can’t block it.
- moi2388 2y agoEU* and it’s up to 10% of global revenue.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoGDPR is 4% and technically EEA rather than EU. DMA is 10%.