2 ms·

Legislators don't get to dodge the natural consequences of their legislation. This wasn't an unexpected side effect, it's the only possible outcome of the bill

Legislators don't get to dodge the natural consequences of their legislation. This wasn't an unexpected side effect, it's the only possible outcome of the bill in the world as it actually exists. Laws should not be written for spherical humans, they should be written for the real-world humans who actively circumvent laws where they can get away with it. And when legislation makes the world worse for everyone because it encourages self-interested individuals and companies to act in a way that is annoying or harmful, legislators don't get to dodge responsibility by saying that it's their fault and they should have just done the right thing. We have laws precisely because people can't be counted on to do the right thing.

natch 2y ago
Agree, and on topic of Apple, this is also a perfect response to why many of Europe’s regulations against Apple are so bad. Not all of them; I don’t have an issue with requiring the use of one charging cable standard, but the privacy and user safety side effects of the legislated undermining of security cannot be ignored.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yes, agreed. Even the title of this piece shows the problem: if Apple isn't meeting the letter of the law, then fine, they need to be punished. But so much of the complaints against Apple are that they're not meeting the spirit of the law, which is a nonsense argument.
jkaplowitz 2y ago
I agree that the law could and should be improved. I feel that having the law is still better than not having it, because there is at least a way to know what awful tracking is occurring, a way to decline it, and a way to assert some rights to at least some partial degree of effectiveness. There is a basis from which to improve the law, instead of having to start from scratch.
frail_figure 2y ago
Don’t collect PII -> don’t show cookie banners. It really is that simple. You don’t need your visitor’s PII. You don’t deserve it “just because”. The visitor does deserve to choose if they want to consent to it.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  > Don’t collect PII -> don’t show cookie banners. It really is that simple. But I want to collect PII, because then I can sell it to a data broker for $$$ or €€€. So I will get the consent of my users, as requested by law. If users do not want to give consent right away, I'll nudge them through various UI patterns.

natch 2y ago

Agree, and on topic of Apple, this is also a perfect response to why many of Europe’s regulations against Apple are so bad. Not all of them; I don’t have an issue with requiring the use of one charging cable standard, but the privacy and user safety side effects of the legislated undermining of security cannot be ignored.

lolinder 2y ago
Yes, agreed. Even the title of this piece shows the problem: if Apple isn't meeting the letter of the law, then fine, they need to be punished. But so much of the complaints against Apple are that they're not meeting the spirit of the law, which is a nonsense argument.

jkaplowitz 2y ago

I agree that the law could and should be improved. I feel that having the law is still better than not having it, because there is at least a way to know what awful tracking is occurring, a way to decline it, and a way to assert some rights to at least some partial degree of effectiveness. There is a basis from which to improve the law, instead of having to start from scratch.

frail_figure 2y ago

Don’t collect PII -> don’t show cookie banners. It really is that simple. You don’t need your visitor’s PII. You don’t deserve it “just because”. The visitor does deserve to choose if they want to consent to it.

warkdarrior 2y ago
> Don’t collect PII -> don’t show cookie banners. It really is that simple. But I want to collect PII, because then I can sell it to a data broker for $$$ or €€€. So I will get the consent of my users, as requested by law. If users do not want to give consent right away, I'll nudge them through various UI patterns.