4 ms·

EU: Don't track users, don't obtain vast amounts of data on users, don't sell that data to third parties. If you you do, ask users for informed consent. Indust

by troupo 2y ago

EU: Don't track users, don't obtain vast amounts of data on users, don't sell that data to third parties. If you you do, ask users for informed consent. Industry: we hear you. Here's "informed consent" form riddled with dark patterns because we believe that all data is ours by God's decree, and our 15 000 "partners" agree with us ... HN: The EU is to blame for this

krick 2y ago
This is correct. However, I always thought that legislation is pretty stupid. It isn't exactly comparable to alcohol/tobacco warnings. Actually, I always thought they are stupid too, but at least they can count as an "informed nonsent", since it's pretty clear, what's the harm they are taking about. Cookies, on the other hand... Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. First off, I know everybody uses cookies, and almost everybody uses some trackers. Second, even me, somewhat informed user, I don't really understand, what is that information they are sharing with third parties, and why should I care. I feel kinda stupid when I bother to press "reject all". Like, does it even matter, what I choose? Wouldn't they do it anyway, whatever they do? Then, I use ublock and I hope it helps. If it doesn't, well, tough luck, but what do I do? I do want to read that one paragraph from the medium/NYT article I found on Google, despite how much I hate them. I won't stop using the internet because of... whatever this is. I can only imagine, what it's like for average user, who is, let's be honest, pretty clueless. I guess for them it is indeed the EU who is too blame here. GDPR is more useful, but still I'm not sure if it really helps. Like, I remember someone complaining that before GDPR you could bulk-download gpx files from Strava, and now you can only request .fit files, that are supposed to containt more data, but really aren't that useful for most. Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors (especially Garmin, god I hate them so much). They are successfully making life harder for you, because they don't want it to be easy to get your own data back. And who is to stop them? Maybe it's a matter of time, I don't know, but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to.
- latexr 2y ago
  The cookie law and GDPR are often conflated, but they are different things. It doesn’t help that websites engage in malicious compliance, thus making everything more confusing. I’ll leave you with two links. The first explains which kinds of cookies do not require consent. You’ll see the list is pretty reasonable. The second is to noyb, a non-profit fighting for privacy (the name means “none of your business”), who has been doing good work thanks to the GDPR. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/
- troupo 2y ago
  > Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. Indeed, and that's exactly what the industry wants. Show me where exactly GDPR mandates the cookie dialogues. Or ePrivacy Directive for that matter. > Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors Yes. And yet you somehow twist it to blame GDPR > but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to. Yea. Enforcement has been sadly lacking
ruthmarx 2y ago
What would the 'light' pattern be in this case, where the business wants to comply with regulation and maximize profit?
- latexr 2y ago
  Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine).
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.
    - latexr 2y ago
      What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        > What are you on about? Exactly what you say here: > the two times I replied to you responding to someone else --- > Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. I find that very odd, not to pay attention to who you are replying to, but OK. > quite the persecution complex. Nah. It's a pretty common behavior or 'pattern' that some people who feel strongly about a position will reply to other child comments by a person they are debating with. I find it frustrating because it normally leads to a lot of redundancy, with the same points being repeated in multiple places, just wasting time. I mistakenly thought that's what you were doing. I apologize.

by troupo 2y ago

krick 2y ago

This is correct. However, I always thought that legislation is pretty stupid. It isn't exactly comparable to alcohol/tobacco warnings. Actually, I always thought they are stupid too, but at least they can count as an "informed nonsent", since it's pretty clear, what's the harm they are taking about. Cookies, on the other hand... Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. First off, I know everybody uses cookies, and almost everybody uses some trackers. Second, even me, somewhat informed user, I don't really understand, what is that information they are sharing with third parties, and why should I care. I feel kinda stupid when I bother to press "reject all". Like, does it even matter, what I choose? Wouldn't they do it anyway, whatever they do? Then, I use ublock and I hope it helps. If it doesn't, well, tough luck, but what do I do? I do want to read that one paragraph from the medium/NYT article I found on Google, despite how much I hate them. I won't stop using the internet because of... whatever this is. I can only imagine, what it's like for average user, who is, let's be honest, pretty clueless. I guess for them it is indeed the EU who is too blame here. GDPR is more useful, but still I'm not sure if it really helps. Like, I remember someone complaining that before GDPR you could bulk-download gpx files from Strava, and now you can only request .fit files, that are supposed to containt more data, but really aren't that useful for most. Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors (especially Garmin, god I hate them so much). They are successfully making life harder for you, because they don't want it to be easy to get your own data back. And who is to stop them? Maybe it's a matter of time, I don't know, but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to.

latexr 2y ago
The cookie law and GDPR are often conflated, but they are different things. It doesn’t help that websites engage in malicious compliance, thus making everything more confusing. I’ll leave you with two links. The first explains which kinds of cookies do not require consent. You’ll see the list is pretty reasonable. The second is to noyb, a non-profit fighting for privacy (the name means “none of your business”), who has been doing good work thanks to the GDPR. https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-guide/design-content-and-development/privacy-security-and-legal-notices/cookies-and-similar-technologies_en https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g... https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/
troupo 2y ago
> Even for me, who was perfectly aware of the problem long before this legislation, and who was privacy-oriented to begin with, it isn't clear, what's the consent I'm giving. Indeed, and that's exactly what the industry wants. Show me where exactly GDPR mandates the cookie dialogues. Or ePrivacy Directive for that matter. > Well, it's not GDPR you should blame, it's Strava and all their partners/competitors Yes. And yet you somehow twist it to blame GDPR > but it doesn't seem GDPR is effectively enforcing what it is supposed to. Yea. Enforcement has been sadly lacking

ruthmarx 2y ago

What would the 'light' pattern be in this case, where the business wants to comply with regulation and maximize profit?

latexr 2y ago
Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine).
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.
  - latexr 2y ago
    What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > What are you on about? Exactly what you say here: > the two times I replied to you responding to someone else --- > Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. I find that very odd, not to pay attention to who you are replying to, but OK. > quite the persecution complex. Nah. It's a pretty common behavior or 'pattern' that some people who feel strongly about a position will reply to other child comments by a person they are debating with. I find it frustrating because it normally leads to a lot of redundancy, with the same points being repeated in multiple places, just wasting time. I mistakenly thought that's what you were doing. I apologize.