this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
716 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

76765 readers
3043 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195

https://archive.is/je5sj

“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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MithranArkanere@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago

I want to know who is behind these changes being proposed. This smells of corruption.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Compliance does need to be considered. The company I work for is trying extremely hard to comply, but because of complexities and ambiguities in the law, it is difficult to find out how to comply. I don't know all the details, but I know legal, compliance, and the data engineering teams spend a lot of time figuring out how to be compliant and there aren't always clear answers.

That said, the solution is not to roll back protections but to be very explicit about how to comply.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Political views are reactionary: if they're against you, then naturally and by no real choice of your own, you're against them.

So if anyone goes against you for your political views, they've made that decision long before you even knew they were against you.

[–] Freigeist@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

Just when it became technically feasible to autodecline in all kinds of cookie banners with AI enabled browsers/browser plug-ins...

[–] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 hours ago
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Yeah; the response should be that a “reject all” button must be displayed next to the accept all button with equal prominence

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.

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.

[–] PKscope@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

People complain because the law was poorly written, not because it is a bad idea.

[–] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Contacted 3 MEPs that seem sensible enough to oppose the suggestion.

[–] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Good job! Fighting the good fight

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago

Now to hope, they are the correct ones (about half of them were extreme right, conservative right or capitalism oriented)...

load more comments
view more: next ›