Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Easy solution: deliver ads, but stop user tracking. Advertising didn't have tracking in TV and printed media anyway.
@Fast-Nop The publisher I work for does not do tracking. Some customers do and their ads are marked by traffic so that those who have opted out don't get them. This was already in GDPR 1. But you need a banner publishing system. They use Googles Ad Manager. Whatever you use will at least require cookies. And then you need to present one of these fun consent forms. Unless you wish to pay a lot or roll your own it's basically Googles Founding Choices or Quantcast. Both are shit and both create these problems with third party stowaways.
I wouldn't worry about it. Like most tech law from the EU, the GDPR exists solely to produce legal grounds to sue the large american tech firms, make headlines and pad budgets.
It's just performative wokeness.
@SortOfTested Well yeah, all the EU ever does is trying to make itself look important. So that they can milk more funds from the nation states of Europe. But in this case they also cause huge damage to internet users and publishers. All those forms everywhere are in themselves a pain in the butt, without even thinking of the permission leakage to random ad vendors.
@SortOfTested Totally not true: https://www.enforcementtracker.com
@Ubbe The ad market will evolve to adapt. They have to because also Apple is clamping down on that tracking stuff. The ad folks will have to learn advertising without tracking, which is the point of the regulations. They didn't learn it on their own, that's why regulating the shit out of them is necessary.
@SortOfTested That's because the fines are in proportion to the company size, which in turn means that it's also painful for smaller companies relative to their budget, and also for EU companies.
Also, the enforcement is most often not via fines right away, but via threatening fines.
Google only has 15K more employees than Vodafone, both at and around the 100K mark. Vodafone earned $50B in 2019, Google earned $162B.
Why is Google's single largest fine 25x vodafone's, and why do they have numerous multimillion dollar fines?
Marriot is smaller than both of them, but paid 12.5x more than voda on fines.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have been fined, I'm just saying they hit US companies way harder.
@SortOfTested I don't know about Marriot, but Google's structural problem is that their business model is fundamentally at odds with the GDPR while Vodafone's (in principle) isn't.
The fine isn't ONLY determined by company size, but also by what is going on.
What concerns me way more is that MS hasn't been GDPR'ed heavily for all the shit going on with Win 10. Looks like the will is missing to crack down on that.
I am not against regulating or even outlawing tracking. But the EU idiots are messing it up totally. What they actually have done is destroying the web as a platform for publishing. And they are actually promoting the smaller tracking rackets out there.
I also don't think the fines are a problem. Yes they can be very high but they have not been handed out recklessly, at least not yet. If you are careless with peoples emails and identity information you should be fined.
The answer: because they violate the GDPR all along with user tracking across websites and generating profiles. This shit is meant to be whipped out of existence. Just don't do that, and you won't have problems and won't need consent.
Remember that technically required cookies that don't invade privacy also don't need consent, e.g. first-party shopping cart cookies.
@Fast-Nop That is not at all a relevant question. The EU is not stomping down on tracking or companies who do the tracking. They are targeting publishers who have a legitimate interest in knowing how many visitors a page has etc. The regulation actually favour trackers by giving hundreds of them consent they would never be able to obtain themselves. And no, you still have to ask permission even for non tracking cookies. Permission to use them for legitimate interest. And if the end user then takes the easy way out and presses the big accept button they also accept consent for all those hidden tracking company owned actual tracking cookies. And in the case of Quantcast also of precise geopositioning. This is a thing very few publishers would even want to ask for. This is a real fuckup, typical of the union.
@Ubbe The publishers are those who decide which external trackers to embed and make that face to end users, so it's fully the publishers' responsibility.
Don't include that shit, don't piss on your users' privacy, and you won't have problems. But since you seem adamant on doing so, here's the thing: you are part of the problem, that's why you're suffering, and that's a good thing.
And no, (first party) shopping cart cookies don't require consent. What they do require is describing them and their purpose in your general privacy declaration, but that doesn't need an interactive consent banner.
Also, you don't need user tracking tracking across websites (i.e. even different domains) to know which of your pages page have been visited how often - you get that info already from your regular webserver logs.
You neither need that to know which paths your users take within your website. You also get that from your webserver logs if you care (hint: the referrers).
@Fast-Nop I think you are using a rather extreme and academic privacy argument to defend a policy that is not beneficial to privacy at all.
I got a response from Quantcast stating that they MUST gather precise geopositioning data about site visitors in order to provide that to the VENDORS. Maybe this is not the intention of the makers of GDPR, it certainly is not the wish of this publisher. But it is the practical result of what the EU has done. And policy makers should think of the implications of their actions. It is not worth anything to have good intentions, not that I trust that they have.
@Ubbe it's not extreme. It just shows that you have no appreciation for your users' privacy and think it's someone else's problem.
That's what the EU is cracking down on, to hammer it into your thick skull that your users' privacy is indeed your problem.
Since experience has shown that people tend to understand that better if not understanding would cost them money, the fines are right there to help you.
If people like you are pissed off, the EU is doing something right for once.
@Fast-Nop Yeas, please keep ignoring that I am not pissed of because I would like to track more but because I wish to track less. That the rules forces publishers to let all sorts of stinking trackers into their sites. So I am pissed off and if that makes you happy, fine. But the semi criminal and fully criminal tracking companies are not. They are much better off now. Hope that makes you and the union happy too.
@Ubbe "That the rules forces publishers to let all sorts of stinking trackers into their sites."
LOL, what a load of BS. Nobody is forcing you to include any tracker at all. It's your call and your responsibility. Well yeah, then wait for the fines, maybe that can help you to start thinking.
Your basic mindset has always been "how to circumvent the GDPR and continue pissing on my users' privacy", that's your problem.
@Fast-Nop Oh dear, you are confused. If I implement the form there is nothing I can be fined for. I do not worry about fines at all. I worry about the privacy of any naïve user that is presented with one of these forms. The webb is full of them already whatever I do. I was surprised and chocked when I realized how appalling they really are and what they actually do. That is what I rant about. You are on some Don Quixote crusade.
CCAtAlvis16Shit happens... but never let your shit go to far... specially while in production or drunk.
DuckyMcDuckFace41Ghostery just leaked all of their users email addresses in their GDPR compliance email.
bittersweet15Boss: "I don't want to comply with the GDPR" Me, DPO: "I've told you the house rules. You must comply, stop a...