It is time to make it illegal. It is clear that we need ways to keep our privacy and they are making even creeper ways to bypass. This is already 1984 level of privacy invasion
It’s fun to imagine a “1984” prequel that would take place in an era when the Party is not full-blown totalitarian, and the telescreen pretends to be a useful information source that asks for permissions so it can better serve you. “1969”?
And abuse in this space is rampant.
...And a law, that holds browser vendors accountable when neglecting this.
A red herring is often used to mean an idea that leads one astray.
A red sparrow (or whatever animal) should often be used to mean a response that anulls one's idea.
The kind of whatabout-ism and but-it-already-is-everywhere responses are the old slippery slope concept, practiced in real time. They do nothing to discuss the facts at hand and are a void of useful conversation.
note: maybe an aussie bird, cause culturally aussies love peace, and will trick people to get it.. like Barbossa in pirates of the carribean..
the Crimson Rosella has a 'cussik-cussik' sound and a series of harsh metallic screeches. like a robot bird...
https://australian.museum/learn/animals/birds/crimson-rosell...
Red rosella - to make robotic screeches in an attempt to anull disliked ideas...
(or something)
HN really loves to hate those regulations and laws.
I accept there may be more teeth in the background, but nobody sees that. That's all entwined with legal maneuverings in courtrooms. What we actually see on the Internet is "everything is exactly the same, but with a new pop-up".
I don't really have an answer, so it's not like I'm much help. I'm all for laws that protect, but if they don't do anything other than make things way more complicated, that's really just a boon to big tech, who can absorb the costs.
DMA should reinforce this: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act (see "Law: Not giving consent")
If the actual enforcement wakes up.
It's illegal to record people without their permission, in certain jurisdictions. We're already stifling innovation!
It's illegal pay money for certain services. We're already stifling innovation!
You're arguing against something negative that hasn't yet happened at the cost not doing anything to prevent something negative already happening right now.
So they’ll be triply unarsed to care enough to politically activate laws about it.
The best hope is Apple kicking Google in the nuts because they want the ad revenue instead.
God help us.
The people beating the drum of user privacy might really just be doing it as a way to block competitors from getting an advantage. Weaponized Privacy.
If someone could take a penny from everyone in the world? Now they have 80 million dollars ...
Or perhaps... users don't have the technical literacy necessary to understand what expectations of privacy aren't being met.
I, for one, would be perfectly happy with the law that on the required actual informed consent. Of course, it would also have to outlaw coercing consent, because companies will immediately go for loopholes.