Cookie notices are a perfect example of EU regulation that targets a technical problem from the wrong angle. Browsers and extensions have far better solutions to the problem than the cookie notices that make the web worse for everyone while only having a minor impact on the larger problem.
No as a regulation still can’t go against primary law. If they added consoles( this would ad just about 90% of the market) they would all be excepted from the regulation the moment they prove they don’t have a dominant position.
Cookie notices are a perfect example of EU regulation that targets a technical problem from the wrong angle. Browsers and extensions have far better solutions to the problem than the cookie notices that make the web worse for everyone while only having a minor impact on the larger problem.
And how do you suppose you fix that? Fine Apple for failing to protect your privacy in the browser as websites circumvent their actions? Enforce that all tracking is illegal including good consensual tracking?
Considering the ones who are violating your privacy is the websites and not the browser.
And how do you suppose you fix that? Fine Apple for failing to protect your privacy in the browser as websites circumvent their actions? Enforce that all tracking is illegal including good consensual tracking?
Considering the ones who are violating your privacy is the websites and not the browser.
Have you never seen a setting or extension to manage cookies? Rules about cookie use can be enforced at the browser level far easier than enforcing then on every website in the world.
Hence, the cookie notices that we are talking about.
Have you never seen a setting or extension to manage cookies? Rules about cookie use can be enforced at the browser level far easier than enforcing then on every website in the world.
I understand what settings and extensions are. My question is still if in your primary law it dictates that your private information shall be protected from non consensual access and use.
So would you then say browser should be legally required to protect users privacy?
And that they are legally responsible when this is violated by websites?
Just how your first amendment exist, this exist but it covers 100% of all entities. Government and private entities.
How would you enforce a legal human right that wouldn’t lead to the ”cookie notice”?
I understand what settings and extensions are. My question is still if in your primary law it dictates that your private information shall be protected from non consensual access and use.
So would you then say browser should be legally required to protect users privacy?
And that they are legally responsible when this is violated by websites?
Just how your first amendment exist, this exist but it covers 100% of all entities. Government and private entities.
How would you enforce a legal human right that wouldn’t lead to the ”cookie notice”?
Your begging the question here. I think the law is poorly thought out, so it's not a justification in and of itself. It currently does not solve the problem and creates additional problems.
I've already directly addressed the problem and the solution. If you don't think websites should be able to set cookies without permission, then require browsers to not set cookies without permission.
Your begging the question here. I think the law is poorly thought out, so it's not a justification in and of itself. It currently does not solve the problem and creates additional problems.
In EU law your privacy is a right you have, in the same way a business can’t discriminate against you for being black as a private business or your first amendment.
The right to privacy or private life is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12), the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 8) and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 7).
First this gave us Data Protection Directive, officially Directive 95/46/EC, enacted in October 1995, and from Article 8 of the ECHR provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
This was a directive, meaning it provided guidelines that each EU member state had to implement through national laws. As a result, there were variations in how data protection rules were applied across different EU countries. This was laster replaced by
• GDPR: This is a regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for separate national legislation. It created a uniform set of rules across the EU, eliminating discrepancies in national data protection laws.
I've already directly addressed the problem and the solution. If you don't think websites should be able to set cookies without permission, then require browsers to not set cookies without permission.
Well no, my option what websites should be allowed to do is separate from a right that is granted. Just how Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is built on your first amendment, and immunizes companies from civil liability stemming from content posted to their sites by third parties.
No, it's not. I already explained what I recommended. You've chosen to ignore it and pivot to a conversation on how laws are passed or other such nonsense.
No, it's not. I already explained what I recommended. You've chosen to ignore it and pivot to a conversation on how laws are passed or other such nonsense.
No I didn’t. I haven’t discussed how laws are passed.
Could you clarify your solution because I don’t understand how it would protect the privacy of citizens that was already declared a human right long before GDPR was written.
No I didn’t. I haven’t discussed how laws are passed.
Could you clarify your solution because I don’t understand how it would protect the privacy of citizens that was already declared a human right long before GDPR was written.
AI, as in "artificial Intelligence" is already there, Copilot, Gemini and ChatGPT as tabs in Safari and... Aria and ChatGPT as sidebar tabs in Opera...and a whole lot of the free and paid, but free is enough...just a click away...👌👍
I think he has a 360 view on the matter. Don’t think free is key either. Users pay for Internet connections and what not for instance. I’m a strong believer in pay for what you use, get payed for what you own.
No form of private Gatekeeping around the Internet, keeping it net neutral as much as possible, not only within but also at the edges is key to innovation. History has proven that. I think the majority EU commissioners have their aim focus on that … other well, like in everything, are there to get noted and play power games.
There is nothing net neutral about Apple policies. And the Apple is trying to convince the market that net neutrality regulation at the edges of the Internet, at its borders, is anti innovation not to mention extremely dangerous for people and their properties.
According to Apple no one is safe without the App Store on the back of devices on the edges of the Internet working as border patrols … regulating and vetting third party properties encapsulated in data, binaries, apps. No one is safe if Apple does not hold the cash register of digital business on the Internet telling how third parties can market their products or not, no one. They believe people bought iPhones to be customers of no other business but Apple. Crazy … that was never in the brochure … not even today.
Today, an App in whatever platform is not just an App, it’s a surrogate of a business. Not just something someone conjured in a garage.
Which is a weird stance to say the least.
It so weird that it looks they want to own part of the borders of the Internet, not everything of course … in the back of peoples devices.
The very own Apple stance on Net Neutrality … they agree that is good … as long it’s only applicable to none of their devices and technology. Google stance is the same.
He seams to know and understand very well why Apple says so, and why the company heads are so furious with the DMA. I do too.
It has nothing to do with being payed for their innovations and platform. Because, even without App Store kind of policies they would be … in fact … already are. But it’s not enough.
The DMA is simply extending such principles to certain classes of devices and platforms operating on the borders of the Internet with their Internet connected digital devices. Beyond ISPs and their platforms … Apple is furious about given that at its core their approach is not Net Neutral, and were planning to bank on it, is at the extreme opposite of Net Neutral.
PS: US policies as always been ambivalent about Net Neutrality. Especially considering who are the major operators, American based companies. The moment outsiders become potentially a threat to its dominance … there are immediately talks about bans, strict regulations if not effective bans.
