3 ms·

> You cannot have an informed case-by-case decision without spending time. Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care about the result is the o

> You cannot have an informed case-by-case decision without spending time. Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care about the result is the one of the major ways of wasting my time. If you wanted to create a good law about this you should make it so I only have to make a case-by-case decision if I care about my privacy (as it's currently exploited) and do nothing if I don't.

GJim 2y ago
> Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care about the result The UK and EU have decided _society_ cares, about the dangers due to unregulated sharing of personal data; hence the law requires informed consent to do this. If _you_ don't care, then that is your prerogative.
dspillett 2y ago
> Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care The laws do not force that. Informed consent before tracking could be implemented other ways, perhaps even more easily. The companies choose to force you to make the decision, rather than making it something you could choose to click or choose to ignore, because forcing that increases the chance that people who do care will accidentally opt-in and people who don't care will get irritated and (as is evident in places in this thread) incorrectly blame the law. The companies make a point of inconveniencing people like you who don't care, so they can weaponise you against those of us who do. The companies are doing this to you, not the law.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. So what's the source of the friction if not law itself or its direct consequences? I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has "Please do track me and do whatever you wish with the data you manage to gather."? I think it would be quite popular. So it's probably prevented by the law itself.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    > Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. If you actively _want_ companies to track you, then you take an unusual position. > So what's the source of the friction The right to privacy if you want it. Someone wanting to let people to follow you around should not override the preference of those who would prefer not. The "why should I care that other people care" argument is very similar to those who argue against smoking restrictions (or seatbelt requirements, and so on) because "it should be our choice" without thinking about the potential consequences to others. > if not law itself or its direct consequences? The source of friction is how the complaints have chosen to interpret the law. They have chosen to do this in a way that causes maximum inconvenience to anyone who want is protections (many are actually in direct contravention of the rules, despite their claims otherwise, but let's for a moment ignore that companies are actively breaking the law). That it also inconveniences people who want to be tracked is a desired sideeffect as it means those people are weaponised in ad-tech's favour in discussions about such matters. > I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. As well as the binary "your choice" vs "my choice" that completely ignores those who have not yet stated there preference, have not yet decided, or do not yet even know there is a choice, or are just passing by. This is why active consent should be the default requirement. > There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has… Your premise is incorrect: Some browsers do. It doesn't work because companies ignore it. It is not in the laws that they shouldn't ignore it because ad-tech and their lobbyists successfully campaigned against that being in the legislation. Again: ad-tech is the reason for your inconvenience, not other people's preference not to be tracked. Part of the issue is that there is a conflict of interests in done quarters, with makers of browsers also being part of the ad-tech stalking business, another place the effects of this are seen is in changes that prevent us choosing to actively block being tracked because we can't express it choice more passively because DNT is ignored. > I think it would be quite popular. We very much agree there. > So it's probably prevented by the law itself It is not. Show me anywhere in the current legislation where UAs implementing a DNT flag (which, I say again, some do) or ad-hoc tech respecting such a flag is prevented (either directly, or by accidental interaction between rules). How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag? (Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at thier convenience).

GJim 2y ago

> Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care about the result The UK and EU have decided _society_ cares, about the dangers due to unregulated sharing of personal data; hence the law requires informed consent to do this. If _you_ don't care, then that is your prerogative.

dspillett 2y ago

> Forcing me to make an informed decision where I don't care The laws do not force that. Informed consent before tracking could be implemented other ways, perhaps even more easily. The companies choose to force you to make the decision, rather than making it something you could choose to click or choose to ignore, because forcing that increases the chance that people who do care will accidentally opt-in and people who don't care will get irritated and (as is evident in places in this thread) incorrectly blame the law. The companies make a point of inconveniencing people like you who don't care, so they can weaponise you against those of us who do. The companies are doing this to you, not the law.

scotty79 2y ago
Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. So what's the source of the friction if not law itself or its direct consequences? I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has "Please do track me and do whatever you wish with the data you manage to gather."? I think it would be quite popular. So it's probably prevented by the law itself.
- dspillett 2y ago
  > Companies want to track me. I want companies to track me. If you actively _want_ companies to track you, then you take an unusual position. > So what's the source of the friction The right to privacy if you want it. Someone wanting to let people to follow you around should not override the preference of those who would prefer not. The "why should I care that other people care" argument is very similar to those who argue against smoking restrictions (or seatbelt requirements, and so on) because "it should be our choice" without thinking about the potential consequences to others. > if not law itself or its direct consequences? The source of friction is how the complaints have chosen to interpret the law. They have chosen to do this in a way that causes maximum inconvenience to anyone who want is protections (many are actually in direct contravention of the rules, despite their claims otherwise, but let's for a moment ignore that companies are actively breaking the law). That it also inconveniences people who want to be tracked is a desired sideeffect as it means those people are weaponised in ad-tech's favour in discussions about such matters. > I think other parties try to force me to care when I don't by introducing all that friction. As well as the binary "your choice" vs "my choice" that completely ignores those who have not yet stated there preference, have not yet decided, or do not yet even know there is a choice, or are just passing by. This is why active consent should be the default requirement. > There's a talk about DNT. What's the reason no browser has… Your premise is incorrect: Some browsers do. It doesn't work because companies ignore it. It is not in the laws that they shouldn't ignore it because ad-tech and their lobbyists successfully campaigned against that being in the legislation. Again: ad-tech is the reason for your inconvenience, not other people's preference not to be tracked. Part of the issue is that there is a conflict of interests in done quarters, with makers of browsers also being part of the ad-tech stalking business, another place the effects of this are seen is in changes that prevent us choosing to actively block being tracked because we can't express it choice more passively because DNT is ignored. > I think it would be quite popular. We very much agree there. > So it's probably prevented by the law itself It is not. Show me anywhere in the current legislation where UAs implementing a DNT flag (which, I say again, some do) or ad-hoc tech respecting such a flag is prevented (either directly, or by accidental interaction between rules). How about an alternative: have a one-click "track me if you want" flag? (Of course it would be terribly naive to think companies would not also just ignore that and track when it isn't set at thier convenience).