Yet another example of bureaucrats failing as technocrats.

News at Eleven or Twelve or two centuries...

Yet another example of bureaucrats failing as technocrats.

Well, that depends on your standpoint. This also demonstrates 80% of technocrats failing to understand human values and rights. It is not at all unreasonable for people to have a right to their personal data only being handed over EXPLICITLY. It is not that difficult to do, if you accept the premise and get on with it. I now:

- Delete the last three digits of a visitors' IP address in logging systems, (Google analytics offers this, as does Matomo)
- Our online chat also masks the last 3 digits of the user's IP address. If they want to be emailed a response, they have to explicitly enter their email address, which is a much more targeted way of collecting data anyway.
- Only when the user signs up to a free account do they end up having to have some personal data collected, so again, the consent moves from explicit to required. Only at this stage are they asked about mailing preferences.

So - we do not require a GDPR banner... because our cookies are not personally identifiable until and the user actively signs up - at which point the terms of service come into effect. I am also not spending resources spamming or tracking users that never have any intention of materially engaging with the business. So - Win-Win.

Well, that depends on your standpoint.

See "Do Not Call" list... :-)

See "Do Not Call" list... :-

)

I’m lost there.

[See "Do Not Call"... :-)

I suppose you mean that in order to know someone does not want to be contacted, you need to store information about them. True. But that is fundamentally different to not storing information about a person until they request or require it.

I meant that bureaucrats do have the power to actually make the Do Not Call idea a reality, and it certainly is not a technical issue stopping them from being effective.

And if we let bureaucrats off the hook, regarding their responsibility to protect our privacy (on Do Not Call and GDPR / CCPA), by stating that technical issues were even remotely the cause of their ineffectiveness, then we're the ones to blame.

So - we do not require a GDPR banner... because our cookies are not personally identifiable until and the user actively signs up - at which point the terms of service come into effect.

I'm doing this with all my sites in the hope that I really don't have to implement those silly banners/pop-ups. I have been asked a few times to implement banners/pop-ups and they seem to stop asking when I describe the complexity of the issue and request a budget.

As the article says, it would probably just be a lot easier if sites were legally required to honor Do Not Track.

it would probably just be a lot easier if sites were legally required to honor Do Not Track.

Heh heh! As if that will happen!