cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195
“If adopted, these amendments would not simplify compliance but hollow out the GDPR’s and ePrivacy’s core guarantees: purpose limitation, accountability, and independent oversight,” Itxaso Dominguez de Olazabal, from the European Digital Rights group, told EUobserver.
The draft includes adjustments to what is considered “personal data,” a key component of the GDPR and protected by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
oh yeah i’ve heard about it.
basically, people got pissed with cookie banners so much that they complained to the EU government about it.
the EU government said “well, if people don’t like the choice to allow or deny cookies, i guess we’ll un-do these regulations”.
I think this is a very good example how people are always complaining, no matter what the government does.
If the government makes a law, a group of people complain. If the government later removes that same law that people kept whining about, another group of people complains. What to do?
Btw, another nice example is worldwide free trade. When it was introduced starting in the 1970s, people were very loud about the fact that they didn’t like it because they feared competition from foreign markets, companies moving abroad (offshoring), and jobs at home being lost. That is largely exactly what happened (though free trade also had many positive sides like exchange of technology and culture). 50 years later, world governments (especially in the west) want to un-do free trade, and people complain again about it, citing a loss of free exchange of ideas as a reason. What to do.
Frankly, that’s a stupid ass take.
Reality is not binary, we progress and evolve. The constant pressure to be better than yesterday is the reason we got where we are.
It’s different groups of people with different interests.
Also doesn’t help that the cookie banners were a kind of malicious compliance. They were made deliberately difficult to navigate around when you didn’t immediate hit “accept everything unequivocally”.
That the response to this malicious compliance is a retreat rather than a doubling down suggests the EU regulators are compromised by the industry and this isn’t a popular reform in any meaningful sense.
Yeah; the response should be that a “reject all” button must be displayed next to the accept all button with equal prominence, and define prominence to mean the same size, with similar contrast to the accept all button and clearly labelled.
I’ll do you one better. “Websites should default to the minimal cookies option, with settings confined to a website option menu that does not occlude the entrance page.”
Yeah, the malicious compliance was what should have been regulated instead. Ban the annoying cookie popup and require sites to make it opt-in by default. At most, sites should be allowed to have an option in a burger menu to allow cookies, and clicking that button would open the popup to specify which cookies you wanted to allow.
what this is not a always complain situation. These banners are designed to annoy you. A competent non corrupt goverments respond would be to make rules so the design would not suck, and not remove them. But these ghouls dont work for the people anymore.