h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This may well be baked, in which case this is simply a ruse to
lure Halfbakers into telling me how to do it.
Every bloody webpage I visit now plonks an obscuring rectangle
over the content, telling me how much they value my privacy
and asking me if I'm happy to accept their cookies. If I clear
my
cookies at any time, every bloody webpage does it AGAIN. I
really don't give a shit.
Why, therefore, can I not simply tell my browser that "whatever
it is, just click accept or OK"? Or better yet, a setting that does
this before the obscuring rectangle appears.
Use_20cookies_20to_...tes_20look_20better
[hippo, Jun 24 2019]
[link]
|
| |
//can I not simply tell my browser that
"whatever it is, just click accept or OK"?// |
|
| |
A wonderful recipe for extensive trojan, worm & other
virus or malware infection. |
|
| |
Strongly recommended if you want things to get
interesting. |
|
| |
great service to humanxkind, those GDPR regulations |
|
| |
A better idea would be for someone to create a
'feed the cookies with total bollox' piece of
software. This would automatically deliver a
continuous stream of fictitious drivel and gibberish
to whatever those cookies are connected to. |
|
| |
An even better idea would be to make the creation or
intentional propagation of malware a capital offence. On the
other hand, it disproportionately affects Windows users, so
maybe not. |
|
| |
An even better idea would be for someone to create malware
that piggybacks off the cookie data sent from your PC to
seriously fuck up the computers & servers accepting that
cookie data from you, that'd give the bastards pause for
thought. |
|
| |
There are extensions for popular web browsers that have
the purpose of getting rid of cookie notices. I can't
recommend a particular one, because I don't use one
myself
(because the cookie notices are a tiny annoyance
compared
the annoyance in webpage loading that I inflict on myself
by
blocking scripts by default). |
|
| |
Relatedly, uBlock Origin* is good at blocking annoying
elements on webpages with its "element picker" feature,
though you have to choose what elements to block on
each new website. (It's persistent. If you only want to
hide an element once, use the "element zapper" feature
instead.) |
|
| |
*Make sure you get uBlock Origin, not any of the other
extensions named uBlock, which are from other
developers and may not be trustworthy. |
|
| |
[xenzag] //A better idea would be for someone to create a 'feed the cookies with total bollox' piece of software// - see link |
|
| |
I will go on record as saying that I am fully in favour of GDPR
even though it has made my professional life an unending
misery. |
|
| |
really [calum] which part? the copyright part or the privacy
part? What do you think is actually improved? |
|
| |
// really [calum]//
Yes. In relation to both my support for GDPR and the part
about my professional life being unending misery.
//which part?//
What do you mean?
//the copyright part or the privacy part?//
Ah, I see. I think you may be conflating GDPR with
something else. GDPR is concerned with personal data.
//What do you think is actually improved?//
It mandates data minimisation, promotes data security,
encourages organisations with large data pools to actually
think about the personal data they have and why, it
increases transparency for the uses that your data is put
to, it increases the powers individuals have with
reference to their personal data, it has created jobs (data
professionals!). It has made
professional life immeasurably harder for many people,
yes. I am OK with that. Old men have yelled at cookie
notifications. But no one has died. |
|
| |
[-] rant. There are loads of browser extensions to hide the message, I use one called "I don't care about cookies" and it works fine. |
|
| |
[Skewed] there is a big difference between a browser interface box, and consent box which lives within the sandbox of an HTML page. |
|
| |
[xenxag] I know you don't have a technical background, but your annotation suggests you don't understand cookies. I wrote an explanation of the problem in simple terms a while back, see mitxela.com/rants (about halfway down the page) if you're interested. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] I too am upset about the impact the new copyright laws will have, but the suggestion that the HB will be affected is a little extreme. The laws were written by people with no understanding of the issues, and by the sound of it are completely unenforceable. The text-only content of the HB is unlikely to be affected. |
|
| |
//there is a big difference between a browser interface box,
and consent box which lives within the sandbox of an HTML
page// That was sort of what I was thinking: any website that
wants to feed me malware is not going to ask for my consent
to cookies in the first place. I don't think I've ever not
accepted cookies (or their privacy policy, or whatever else
pops up), and if I want to I can just turn on the ask-before-
accepting-cookies option in my browser. |
|
| |
I've been thinking along similar lines. I want my browser to be able to
navigate the torturous route of: |
|
| |
* yes, I would like to browse your website |
|
| |
* yes, you may keep a cookie to track my progress through your
website but |
|
| |
* no, I do not authorise you to share the data you gather with others
to build up a complete profile of where I have been on the internet,
thank-you very much. If you can't agree to that level of privacy then I
don't want your cookie. |
|
| |
Well, that's the Halfbakery told, then. |
|
| |
// I (like everyone else, etc) simply scroll around...//
Sounds like I'm the only person who actually reads these things. I don't find it any great imposition. Only takes a few seconds & a couple of clicks. I, too, am in favour of GDPR. It's been far too long coming if you ask me. The copyright thing is bullshit though.
Also, what Skewed said inthe first comment. |
|
| |
//Halfbakery is not even from this century// |
|
| |
One of the fun things about straddling a century is being able
to say things like that & make it sound like your over a
hundred years old when there's really only less 20 years in it. |
|
| |
//The text-only content of the HB is unlikely to be
affected.// |
|
| |
And the links themselves shouldn't be an issue either, because
they're just links, the issue (if or when there is one) will be
with the sight hosting what the links link to rather than with
the bakery shirley? The bakery should be fine. |
|
| |
//not implying calum is odd// |
|
| |
//a knitting circle website is censoring any pro-Trump speech
because they must all be white supremacists// |
|
| |
Interesting, I'll remember not to join any knitting circles then,
white supremacists, not my cup of tea. |
|
| |
//what percentage of the population are still clinging to
rational thought// |
|
| |
We had a poll back in 2016 to answer that very question,
apparently it's around 52%. |
|
| |
//Younger people may remember there not being an
internet// |
|
| |
Ok I admit it, that would be me, I remember Pong when it
first came out, a bright orange box with 2 wheel-paddles,
but
it was more than 20 years since the bombs were falling for
me, though there were bomb craters in London still that
my dad used to play in when he was a nipper. |
|
| |
//Source ? Oh nevermind, its going to be a tabloid survey like
"bacon kills!"// |
|
| |
[Watches the tumbleweed blowing by four feet over [biggie]'s
head] [Files datum that [Big] 'probably' isn't UK for future
reference] |
|
| |
Not having an obvious user level close button on the popup window, one that gives a definite script truncation without data entry, irks me. |
|
| |
//"bacon kills!"//
I misread this as "bacon skills!", and thought, "yes, I have bacon skills". |
|
| |
Your confusing 'desires' with 'skills', red or brown? |
|
| |
I don't really get it. sure, companies make money on your
data, and you get free services in exchange. To the
extent that data is used for marketing -- duh, that's what
you want -- and to the extent that data can be used for
evil purposes -- that's MUCH more likely to come from a
government than from the private sector, and the
government already has separate means to track you,
which it surely employs. |
|
| |
You're at much higher risk from public shaming and HR
research of your publicly stated opinions than from
anything GDPR is protecting you from. |
|
| |
[hippo] Do mean F. Bacon skills ?. What sort of skills does bacon have? Hold water, crackle and sizzle, good at disappearing. |
|
| |
No, no - just normal bacon preparation skills, mostly frying-related. |
|
| |
here's a real case -- we're a small company -- four people.
We're inundated with Google dropping our games & apps
because they use advertising -- of course, vanilla Google
in-game ads -- thus using device identifying parameters
(incidentally forced on us by Google's SDK) -- because our
store listing for the games does not contain an official
privacy policy link. This is a new Google policy change
since GDPR -- forced on US consumers by Googles' desire
to not have to do this N times for N countries. |
|
| |
So...I take a vanila privacy policy downloaded off the
web, without reading it, post it on my website for these
games, which no one goes to -- and update every store
game listing with said link -- and voila, my games are
relisted. |
|
| |
Now, what was the sense of that, who was harmed by the
absence of said policy, and further, who is helped by me
going through this process. That's the real result of
privacy regulation. |
|
| |
The US Constitution already protects against
unreasonable search and
seizures. I'm ok with case law adjusting this as is
required by technology
and is reasonable. I do not need these added regulations,
and they are not
designed to help me as either a consumer or a producer. |
|
| |
It is this kind of masturbation, which definitionally favors
those who have the resources to navigate it, that
accomplishes precisely the opposite of helping the
consumer |
|
| |
It sounds - and I may be misreading - like you are cross
because google's approach to implementation of GDPR
meant you had to do a bit of extra work. |
|
| |
yes. But it was entirely predictable that GDPR will result in
just such burdens across the landscape. When actual
benefit is demonstrated I stand ready to note it |
|
| |
I use a VPN. I use a script blocker and an ad blocker. There have been a few things I'm unable to see this way, but only a few. On reputable sites or disreputable ones that I like I selectively allow the scripts. I also frequently clear all cookies and site preferences and change zoom level. These measures, I feel, leave me much safer and harder to track. |
|
| |
A nice side effect is I almost never see an obscuring screen over the site. If I see one I click the obscuration and tell my ad blocker to block it. This almost always works, and only doesn't if the site is specifically hostile to it. And if they're that uncooperative well, there's always a different site that has the same information. |
|
| |
The funny thing is the less likely a site is to work with my script and ad blockers the less likely it is to be valuable and safe. The only exceptions are the New York Times and Youtube as of about a month ago. These sites don't work properly for me unless I unblock all scripts and ads. I'm unwilling to do this and so on my internet Youtube and the New York Times site don't exist. |
|
| |
"You've declared your application does not target children
under 13. Google will review your store listing to make
sure that it doesn't unintentionally appeal to children
under 13. |
|
| |
The following question asks if you think your store listing
could unintentionally appeal to children. Learn more |
|
| |
If you answer 'Yes', the 'Not designed for children' label
will be shown next to your app on Google Play. |
|
| |
If you answer 'No', and Google disagrees with your answer,
you won't be able to update your app. |
|
| |
To resolve this, you will need to either: |
|
| |
Answer 'Yes' to this question, and consent to the 'Not
designed for children' label being shown next to your app
Change your store listing so that it doesn't appeal to
children. This may include your app description, icon, and
screenshots.
Change the target age group of your app to include
children, and comply with the Families policy" |
|
| |
Does Disney need to stop using Mickey in their
advertising? Does Candy Crush appeal to children? If my
app list recipes, would I need to disclaim that you should
not use it if you are on a diet or take certain medication? |
|
| |
Does the camera app appeal to children under 13? Or do
those not take selfies? How can Google advertise the
phone with pictures of teens using it? |
|
| |
All this to have Google act as the parent that should
disallow their kids not only the inconvenience of not
buying in-game products, but perhaps using the device at
all. |
|
| |
Yes, no doubt humanity's condition has been improved
immeasurably due to this. |
|
| |
//When actual benefit is demonstrated I stand ready to
note it//
You have certainly had the downside of the
impact of GDPR, though mediated through google's
approach to risk mitigation as much as anything. You had
the downside because it affected you as a (potential)
data controller / processor, rather than as a data subject.
If you're not a data subject, there is only work to do, and
no upside. |
|
| |
But if you are a data subject, the benefits are plentiful.
There is a limit to what I can say here (because my
account here could be linked to my professional internet
presence and too much specificity could result in people
putting two and two together and getting exactly four
and ==> me losing my job) but I can say, without
breaching client confidentiality, that I have seen shit
being done with personal data that would make your balls
stand on end and your hair shrivel up into your body. And
the reason that I saw it is because GDPR was coming and
people realised they maybe needed to do something
about compliance. That shit is not being done any more
and people are wise to the concept that it can't be done
here any longer. This is a good thing. But if you're
stateside and staying stateside, then you're never going to
see the benefits. |
|
| |
Wait - there's a Halfbaker with a JOB?? |
|
| |
Retired. Does that count? |
|
| |
They have UI designers nowadays? That's progress. I had a UI
a while ago and they just gave me antibiotics. |
|
| |
//personal data that would make your balls stand on end and
your hair shrivel up// |
|
| |
In a former life, when I worked on hospitality software, I once
stumbled on a database where a convention of endoscopists
had been booked alongside a wedding party. Because of the
GDPR, I will now have to write the obvious bedroom farce by
hand, instead of machine-generating it from the reservation
details of real people and blackmailing them with drafts of the
script. |
|
| |
[calum], I'm one of the people that started mobile advertising industry, and when Google bought
Admob, I was
generating about 10% of their business, and testified on Google's behalf to the FTC (as they were
reviewing the
merger), I doubt I'd be very surprised. The early mobile advertising's industry fight against fraud
paid for much of
the advancement on personalization that occured in subsequent years |
|
| |
I get what you're saying, but I still think the key protections are the protections against
unreasonable search and
seizure, i.e. against government action. |
|
| |
For those of us of a certain age -- I'd speculate many of us here -- the standard joke was why do I
have to see tampax
ads -- we finally got to the age when you search for a particular power tool, and you next see it
advertised when you
use Facebook -- and omg, that's the biggest transgression against my privacy! |
|
| |
Fighting against targeted advertising does not help the consumer, and does not help the advertiser.
In very narrow
cases -- discriminatory cases -- you do have to make sure that the advertiser doesn't violate current
law -- but doing
that was already illegal before GDPR. |
|
| |
Honestly -- I'm much more affected by the insane # of telemarketing calls that had exploded over
the years -- then
anything -- I'd prioritize that much higher. |
|
| |
//I still think the key protections are the protections
against unreasonable search and seizure, i.e. against
government action.//
Fair enough. For the record,
the ball standing / hair shriveling shit was in large
majority carried out by private enterprise and in almost
all cases was not concerned with advertising. |
|
| |
//Honestly -- I'm much more affected by the insane # of
telemarketing calls that had exploded over the years --
then anything -- I'd prioritize that much higher//
Allow me to introduce you to the EU's Privacy and
Electronic Communications Directive 2002 (implemented
in the UK as the The Privacy and Electronic
Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (yes, it's
generally abbreviated to PECR (pronounced as you'd
expect / fear))), which deals
with telemarketing (and other unsolicited forms of
marketing) and is about to be replaced by the EU's
ePrivacy regulation which will (should) fuck up
telemarketers real good. |
|
| |
//I ...testified on Google's behalf to the FTC // |
|
| |
//insane # of telemarketing calls// |
|
| |
Had I casual access to military drones there might
have
been a non-insignificant danger head office of certain
companies hiring telemarketers last year being rubble
strewn
craters now. Delisting my phone seems to have mostly
done the
trick
but friends & family now can't 1471 calls & call me
back if they screen them. |
|
| |
//(should) fuck up telemarketers real good// |
|
| |
That's nice, does it include the death penalty for offending
CEO's? if not it doesn't go far enough. |
|
| |