←back to thread

583 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
michaelmauderer ◴[] No.45668112[source]
The problem here is not the law, but malicious compliance by websites that don't want to give up tracking.

"Spend Five Minutes in a Menu of Legalese" is not the intended alternative to "Accept All". "Decline All" is! And this is starting to be enforced through the courts, so you're increasingly seeing the "Decline All" option right away. As it should be. https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stan...

Of course, also respecting a Do-Not-Track header and avoiding the cookie banner entirely while not tracking the user, would be even better.

replies(27): >>45668188 #>>45668227 #>>45668253 #>>45668318 #>>45668333 #>>45668375 #>>45668478 #>>45668528 #>>45668587 #>>45668695 #>>45668802 #>>45668844 #>>45669149 #>>45669369 #>>45669513 #>>45669674 #>>45670524 #>>45670593 #>>45670822 #>>45670839 #>>45671739 #>>45671750 #>>45673134 #>>45673283 #>>45674480 #>>45675431 #>>45678865 #
isodev ◴[] No.45669674[source]
> The problem here is not the law

Of course. The law is clear, the intent is clear and the guidelines are clear.

I think the biggest challenge (and the reason why it feels this is everywhere) is because of the handful of "big corporations" controlling the browsers. Neither Apple nor Google have any interest in making tracking opt-in or working to make this into a standard.

In my view, the situation will be greatly improved with policy like the DMA being amplified even further to prevent cartel-like reactions from the FAANGs (whatever the acronym is today). We have a deep "culture difference" with the US, where everyone expects everything to be spelled out for them in the law so they can sue each other into oblivion, but the reality is this doesn't work. We need to reduce the influence of bigger players and install guardrails so it will never be possible again for a single company to have such dramatic influence over the world.

Imagine how many of these consent prompts can be removed if it wasn't for the fact that even loading a Google Font exposes one to a few hundred "partners"?

replies(3): >>45670194 #>>45670482 #>>45678966 #
gradientsrneat ◴[] No.45670482[source]
> everyone expects everything to be spelled out for them

Strictly speaking, that's how civil law works, spelling out explicitly the statutes.

By contrast, common law statutes can be (but are not always), more concise but more vague, putting greater emphasis on the courts to interpret them.

That is one reason USA is more litigious, but it probably isn't the only reason. After all, Germany has the infamous legal bounty hunters (one of the words may be "Abmahnanwälte" but I think there's a different one), and Germany is a civil law country, so USA being common law can't fully explain it.

replies(1): >>45671753 #
1. isodev ◴[] No.45671753[source]
My point was that the approach is not effectual when the guilty party is a corporation with near infinite resources.

Take Apple for example, it takes years just to complete a single “unlawful termination” suit, and it would be … decades before the world can equalise the damage from their App Store practices. And all while this is going on, corps are pouring huge amount of money into lobbying so by the end they nerf or even reverse the very policy that keeps them accountable.