2 ms·

I honestly don't see how your comment makes sense. Tt's the GDPR (published in 2016) that mandates that consent must be freely given. Using a 2002 directive to

by Rygian 2y ago

I honestly don't see how your comment makes sense. Tt's the GDPR (published in 2016) that mandates that consent must be freely given. Using a 2002 directive to justify your point is disingenuous. You could have selected instead the 2020 guidelines [1] that are extremely detailed and address this point explicitly: [quote]Example 17: A data controller may also obtain explicit consent from a visitor to its website by offering an explicit consent screen that contains Yes and No check boxes, provided that the text clearly indicates the consent, for instance “I, hereby, consent to the processing of my data” […][/] > You call it malicious compliance; sure, but when this is what everyone else is doing, and you decide that you want to go against "industry norms" for your website, you are painting a giant target on your back. Non sequitur. Surely refusing to engage in malicious compliance paints _less_ of a target on your back, especially when that "malicious compliance" is actually non-compliant. [1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202005_consent_en.pdf https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/e...

andrewla 2y ago
I mean, have you ever had to deal with regulators? Departing from industry norms will 100% be used against you in any regulatory proceeding, no matter how minor. It is naive to think otherwise. Regulators go after big pockets and The guidelines you link to are advisory, not legal, and they trace back to the ePrivacy regulations (although the notion of "consent" was modified by the GDPR; it's not clear which interpretation applies -- ePrivacy regulations, which are still in effect, also require consent). "The obligation is on controllers to innovate to find new solutions that operate within the parameters of the law and better support the protection of personal data and the interests of data subjects." This is standard boilerplate shit that says "you have to follow the regulations, not whatever is in this doc". I honestly don't know what to tell you. The cookie popups are an offense in every possible way; they fail to accomplish their intended purposes, they burden users with useless interactions that provide no protection, and they burden website developers with useless busywork to document compliance to hopefully avoid retaliatory punitive fines if you draw the attention of regulators or EU officials. That these policies find supporters on HN of all places is beyond my comprehension.

by Rygian 2y ago

andrewla 2y ago

I mean, have you ever had to deal with regulators? Departing from industry norms will 100% be used against you in any regulatory proceeding, no matter how minor. It is naive to think otherwise. Regulators go after big pockets and The guidelines you link to are advisory, not legal, and they trace back to the ePrivacy regulations (although the notion of "consent" was modified by the GDPR; it's not clear which interpretation applies -- ePrivacy regulations, which are still in effect, also require consent). "The obligation is on controllers to innovate to find new solutions that operate within the parameters of the law and better support the protection of personal data and the interests of data subjects." This is standard boilerplate shit that says "you have to follow the regulations, not whatever is in this doc". I honestly don't know what to tell you. The cookie popups are an offense in every possible way; they fail to accomplish their intended purposes, they burden users with useless interactions that provide no protection, and they burden website developers with useless busywork to document compliance to hopefully avoid retaliatory punitive fines if you draw the attention of regulators or EU officials. That these policies find supporters on HN of all places is beyond my comprehension.