notechback

6 ms·

1.
by notechback 6y ago
The GDPR obliges all companies to provide an option for users to receive all data held on them; takeout and FB'd equivalent were implemented in response to that. For all other companies, at least if you are in the EU, you should he ab
2.
by notechback 6y ago
Another view might be that this means you are investing in the community behind it and some of the leading people who hopefully will help to ensure that the project lives on.
3.
by notechback 6y ago
Original report and PR: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
4.
by notechback 6y ago
Yes I absolutely agree it can be useful.anf satisfying to see analytics. But it also means you send your users' data to another place where you know it will be recycled etc. There are alternatives but as you say sadly none are as easy
5.
by notechback 6y ago
Technically necessary cookies are fine. If those go beyond that it would be against the law... If you're in the EU.
6.
by notechback 6y ago
But it's not cookie consent, it's tracking consent.
7.
by notechback 6y ago
It's not just cookies though, it's tracking in general which you should also be able to turn off (but impossible at browser level).
8.
by notechback 6y ago
The law is not about cookies, it's about an obligation to inform on and let users opt out of tracking features that go beyond technically necessary features.
9.
by notechback 6y ago
They are not mandatory, it's a choice by the site owner to include them. They are only mandatory if you include tracking features that track users across the web (= ads and Google analytics).
10.
by notechback 6y ago
Most of Europeans do. You might not care in the moment but you will care if you know how these profiles are used, sold and resold, ...
11.
by notechback 6y ago
Gdpr does not force the banners. It forces to ask for consent before tracking users across sites. This doesn't have to be a banner and it doesn't have to be if you only use technical cookies (login, session, ..) You only need con
12.
by notechback 6y ago
Not because of the law but because those pushing tracking and designing the banners intentionally make them intrusjve. Purely technical cookies (eg login, spam protection) don't need a consent by the user.
13.
by notechback 6y ago
No website needs GA. You choose to have it for whatever reason but there's not ever a need to use GA. There are many less intrusive ways to father statistics than to sell your users to Google.
14.
by notechback 6y ago
Technical cookies don't need consent.
15.
by notechback 6y ago
How many sites have seriously thought about reducing Google analytics and intrusive ads? If it's even 1% then the banners unequivocally HAVE made the web better.
16.
by notechback 6y ago
Giving you the right to get a copy of data held by Facebook & co!
17.
by notechback 6y ago
Eu lawmaking in a nutshell: Commission (leaders of which are selected by your government that you presumably voted for) makes a draft. Commission consults widely (usually online consultation) and all national ministries comment. Commission
18.
by notechback 6y ago
For login, payment etc you would have "technical" cookies, the ones essential to run the site. They don't need a consent.
19.
by notechback 6y ago
Why add GA then? It's user hostile and there are better and more compliant ways to track basic analytics.
20.
by notechback 6y ago
Most websites wouldn't need them to begin with (except to use Google analytics and ads). You can do basic user statistics without active tracking and for technical cookies the banners (nor any other form of consents) is necessary. The
21.
by notechback 6y ago
The legislation was long overdue. It's a bit more complex than it ought to be but the intentions are just fine. The issue is that there's a huge number of organisations that prefer not to comply or have every intention to make thi
22.
by notechback 6y ago
This 100x. Provider that gives me 1-5 check marks to make once (and where the default settings are "off"?) - trustworthy. Anything like Verizon properties which gives an intentionally bad UX with thousands of clicks, information o
23.
by notechback 6y ago
I don't click every consent banner and you also shouldn't. You'd be surprised how many accept a No just fine, which is the intended use.
24.
by notechback 6y ago
That's not the law, that's the implementation that's the issue. The same EU body quoted above has passed the message for a long time that that's not needed eg for purely technical cookies.
25.
by notechback 6y ago
What's not conform? That's a language selection screen, not a cookie screen. In the banner at the top you can click "decline".
26.
by notechback 6y ago
> Love that idea. We definitely want to ... Hi Shaun, I appreciate the you take the time and respond to everyone here, but it's all "thank you I love the idea" with rather platitude answers (plenty of chrome extensions do
27.
by notechback 6y ago
Juul is owned by big tobacco (Philip Morris).
28.
by notechback 6y ago
I would hope that any gun shop that sells products with the slogan "you can murder your spouse or neighbour with them, but you can also shoot animals or walls I guess".gets shut down ;)
29.
by notechback 6y ago
Maybe their first aim is also to make it less accessible and reduce its use.
30.
by notechback 6y ago
You can still sue the developers to pieces even if the project lives on.

More ›