3 ms·
Covered under the law: they are, they really are. You're required to disclose. I didn't say consent. This is precisely why I say talk to a lawyer. I appreciat
by bradleyy 9mo ago
Covered under the law: they are, they really are.
You're required to disclose. I didn't say consent.
This is precisely why I say talk to a lawyer. I appreciate the firmness of your conviction, but not reading what was explicitly stated, well.
- latexr 9mo ago> I appreciate the firmness of your conviction I don’t understand how you could misread “firmness of conviction” in my comment. I made it as short, bland, and neutral as possible, on purpose. It’s just a statement of fact with a source.
- bradleyy 9mo agoA statement of fact in response to a thing I didn't say.
- latexr 9mo agoIn fairness, I have worked for a company which did talk to a lawyer about this and ultimately we didn’t have a cookie banner nor a disclosure of the cookies used (cookies were minimal and without personal information, essentially site settings not even associated with accounts). So I didn’t misinterpret what you said, it’s just that I have seen consent and disclosure always hand in hand. It’s been years since I read the law in full myself, so it’s possible you’re right. I’m going by my own recollection (which can obviously be flawed) and the result of a lawyer’s interpretation (which is the thing you recommended) but I’m not one myself. I still don’t understand (nor have you addressed) how you misread “firmness of conviction” in my words, especially when I purposefully did the opposite because I understand that these legal matters can get fuzzy.
- egorfine 9mo ago> I have worked for a company which did talk to a lawyer about this We have also retained lawyers in UK for the same matter and they could not come to an ultimate conclusion what constitutes tracking and what does not. The whole matter is that brain damaged.