User Controls
Lanny, what is your stance on The California Consumer Privacy Act?
-
2019-12-30 at 10:49 PM UTC
-
2019-12-30 at 10:56 PM UTCevery post made here, Lanny has the rights to them if one is an idea that becomes a real money maker. i doubt anyone signed an agreement giving their ideas away, so a patent attorney would clear that up. but what can happen, by Lanny's own actions, if he sells this site, he also sells his right and our rights to the buyer. and then the issues really begin to compound!!
-
2019-12-30 at 11:02 PM UTCSlate is a jedi magazine - for jedis by jedis.
I have experience with GDPR and the accompanying national Data Protection Acts, along which lines this Californian law is modeled. Once you get past the scaremongering it is a generally a fair and effective piece of legislation that I would not like to see us have to do without. -
2019-12-30 at 11:53 PM UTC
-
2019-12-30 at 11:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ajax Is this a safe place?
https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/california-data-privacy-law-ccpa-do-not-sell-changes.htmlThe CCPA will only apply to businesses that earn more than $25 million in gross revenue
lulThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-12-30 at 11:59 PM UTC
-
2019-12-31 at 12:02 AM UTCLanny is the son of Jeff Hunter there I said it
-
2019-12-31 at 2:42 AM UTC
-
2019-12-31 at 2:47 AM UTC
-
2019-12-31 at 3:08 AM UTC
-
2020-01-01 at 12:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cheyes The cookies thing is fucking retarded
The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.
You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.
Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be. -
2020-01-02 at 2:37 AM UTCSo gen Z and beyond r ok.. The rest of the generations can suck it?
-
2020-01-02 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.
You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.
Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be.
should've just been a ban on multi-domain cookies but I'm guessing that industry lobbying gutted it in the same way they did the 'do not track' standard -
2020-01-02 at 4:24 AM UTC
-
2020-01-02 at 4:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.
You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.
Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be.
i choose not to choose by ublocking the whole thing. works 8 out of 10 times. -
2020-01-02 at 4:43 AM UTCThe Zuckerberg hearings are all we needed to see to understand how disconnected lawmakers are from the digital universe.
-
2020-01-02 at 10:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra should've just been a ban on multi-domain cookies but I'm guessing that industry lobbying gutted it in the same way they did the 'do not track' standard
Tracking for ad-targeting isn't so much a case of multi-domain cookies (e.g. a cookie which is set on one domain and sent to others) but cookies on cross-domain subresources e.g. you link an image from facebook, your browser sends the standard facebook tracking cookie when it requests it from an FB domain, facebook now owns your soul and tries to sell you back dildos. There's only one domain actually involved in that request. And there are valid use cases for something like that (e.g. a common usecase is to have a CDN on a different domain than your webserver, CDN needs some cookie for AB testing or something, webserver has to set it) and legislating against that particular tracking mechanism would make tracking a bit more annoying but ultimately it's immaterial.
I mean when somebody puts that faggy "like on facebook" button on their page they're loading FB javascript and cookie or no, FB owns you. Adding CORS-like restrictions on sub-resources like images doesn't really matter because hosts have already elected to give that data away. I mean it astounds me that major corporations are willing to give this much trust/data to FB for free but the fundamental issue is with hosts giving this data up, not with the particular mechanism the use to do it. If they want to you can't really stop them in a technical capacity, hosts can just email logs or any other data visible to them to FB or google or whoever and it's basically the same thing. Issues with ambiguity aside, the GDPR approach of defininging general classes like "data processors" seems like the right way to go so you can try to pursue the spirit of the legislation in court rather than making it into a game of "how can I find another mechanism of doing the same thing that's going to be even harder for a technically ignorant legislative body to understand". -
2020-01-03 at 2:03 AM UTCYou have a faggy like button
-
2020-01-03 at 2:19 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-01-03 at 2:27 AM UTC
