3 ms·
I think the biggest impediment here is binary thinking, which permeates a lot of this dialog Sure, I agree with the article. Sure, the EU is way behind here in
by raverbashing 2y ago
I think the biggest impediment here is binary thinking, which permeates a lot of this dialog
Sure, I agree with the article. Sure, the EU is way behind here in implementation, and the privacy stuff takes (IMHO) a bit of an absolutist position. But then we ask ourselves, how many people do actually turn down cookie banners (well I do, but still)
As a start, not even the US gov trusts their vendors, that's why there's FedRamp and such. It's a detailed procedural and deep certification.
Is it safe to have your stuff in a US cloud vendor? Well, which stuff? Is it safe to have it in a server under your desk? Probably less safe in the end
Which countries have actual specialists in securing data? (hey didn't the USDS just get shut down?) Which countries actually implement those security guidelines? (Or just general best practices?)
tl;dr: SNAFU
- aranelsurion 2y ago> how many people do actually turn down cookie banners (well I do, but still) does anyone know why EU hasn't regulated (read: forced) use of DNT headers or a similar mechanism instead of non-standard cookie banners that are obviously being abused in a malicious compliance way? Seems to me it could've been just "If I send you `DNT: 1`, that means refuse all non-functional cookies".
- raverbashing 2y agoBut see, whenever the EU prescribes a specific technical solution there's endless whining about how they're "locking themselves in" even if there's a path to evolution in the regulation (see the unified charger ruling) But sure, they could have specified something to the effect of "if a browser specifies (though current technical means) that the user is DNT they should follow that" but there was lobbying from the advertisers and other parties as well