TAZ updated to comply with GDPR

[we_are_borg]

It takes about 15 minutes to block EU IP addresses. I'd say that's easier.

You run Wordpress, XF or IPS you upgrade and done. Nothing else ever to do, with blocking you still use cpu cycle to block.

 

[mysiteguy]

You run Wordpress, XF or IPS you upgrade and done. Nothing else ever to do, with blocking you still use cpu cycle to block.

Not so if you use any third party products. Google Analytics, Adsense, another analytics package, third-party SMTP hosting, newsletter add-on, outside search such as Threadloom, remote backup storage, CDN, etc. Payment processing needs to be reviewed if upgrade subscriptions are offered. With WordPress, since many (probably most) sites use third-party add-ons, each needs to be reviewed.

Then the time to review terms, rules, privacy policies, etc.

 

[feldon30]

Not so if you use any third party products. Google Analytics, Adsense, another analytics package, third-party SMTP hosting, newsletter add-on, outside search such as Threadloom, remote backup storage, CDN, etc. Payment processing needs to be reviewed if upgrade subscriptions are offered. With WordPress, since many (probably most) sites use third-party add-ons, each needs to be reviewed.

Then the time to review terms, rules, privacy policies, etc.

 

[Echo]

That's great! It's also a great opportunity to remind people what they are agreeing to in the Terms and Conditions, which are usually forgotten in the blink of an eye, so it's a good reminder and also logged as being agreed - spot on and well done for doing this ASAP.

I do think some are taking this a bit far.

Agreed, No one likes these silly update rules, but that's life, accept it and move on.

 

[Apple]

It takes about 15 minutes to block EU IP addresses. I'd say that's easier.

Aye, but not the best idea and I don't know why they'd do it, unless thier site was solely aimed toward Americans. Our site is hosted in the US. Our 3 admins are Canadian, American and Irish respectively. A large number of our members are European, and the vast majority of those in the UK. Just banning your members is not the solution. I'm an EU citizen and I'm annoyed by the prospect that lazy people would ban me from content I wish to view. By banning the EU, you're banning 508 million people, a LOT more people than are in the USA and many of them might be great potential members. They should think about that.

Sure, it's been an inconvenience to have to accept TOS and cookies for all the blasted sites recently, but at the same time, I welcome the change. Isn't it about time laws were put in place to put manners on ****heads like Mark Zuckerberg who think that they can do what they like with our information?

When the same thing eventually happens in the US or Canada, and it probably will eventually, will those same people just narrow down their audience yet again? I doubt it. lol.

 

[feldon30]

For most people, this law is just another annoying checkbox and/or interstitial to click through to get to "20 reasons why Gwyneth Paltrow is the greatest actress ever!". Actually it makes me curious. Are EU internet users really smart? Cause the implication is that everyone in the EU is actually going to read 2-3 page legal documents (required by a vague 75 page law) and make a reasoned decision about which websites to share their information with, but everyone in the US is going to just roll their face on the keyboard.

The fantastical utopia that the EU wants -- free websites with no targeted ads and no data collection -- will never happen. Creating content and hosting all has costs. Those costs cannot be covered by dumb "you're on a website about baseball, so here are typical 'heterosexual guy' ads" approach. Nobody is going to tolerate going back to 1990's style "dumb" ads.

The only way out of this is all websites going to a subscription. Many websites have tried, but people are so used to getting everything for "free" that they don't see any reason to pay. Websites had to start doing nefarious sh** to keep the lights on like sponsored content, click tracking, behavior modeling, and supercookies. Facebook and Google perfected it. Now, 20 years later we're trying to unring this bell.

By the way, I've already encountered one website that if you do not click Agree, the site refuses to serve you any more content. Some people say that's a violation.

Anyone who tells you this law is not trying to institute a monumental change in how the Internet will work in the FUTURE is woefully ignorant of how the internet works NOW.

 

[zappaDPJ]

By the way, I've already encountered one website that if you do not click Agree, the site refuses to serve you any more content. Some people say that's a violation.

Only one? I've lost count. I've also lost count of the number of sites I've visited that are not available to EU citizens or permanently undergoing maintenance. I clearly need to get out more

I did encounter one site that genuinely amused me. It gave me a nice menu of pre-checked opt-ins. I stopped opting out when I saw the scroll bar and realised that there were hundreds, possibly thousands of boxes to opt out of. Genius!

 

[Pete]

By banning the EU, you're banning 508 million people, a LOT more people than are in the USA and many of them might be great potential members. They should think about that.

This is an argument that has happened multiple times on this very site. For some sites it's not a killer because they're localised sites that don't contextually matter to the EU (think sites that are local sites for local people), but for most sites it may come to end up mattering.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Anyone who tells you this law is not trying to institute a monumental change in how the Internet will work in the FUTURE is woefully ignorant of how the internet works NOW.

Yes. That's exactly what GDPR is doing. It's the first step in doing away with all the "nefarious sh**" that companies have gotten away with for years. Those who profit from those underhanded practices will shout and wring their hands, just like they did when the same thing happened to print, and when the same thing happened to radio, and when the same thing happened to television. And then life will go on and companies will adapt to the new way of doing things.

 

[feldon30]

Yes. That's exactly what GDPR is doing. It's the first step in doing away with all the "nefarious sh**" that companies have gotten away with for years. Those who profit from those underhanded practices will shout and wring their hands, just like they did when the same thing happened to print, and when the same thing happened to radio, and when the same thing happened to television. And then life will go on and companies will adapt to the new way of doing things.

A refreshing perspective after reading so many EU folks who say the laws are "common sense", "simple", "easy to implement" and should have no "significant impact" on current businesses. This is a sea change. I wonder how many irreplaceable websites will go away and how many people will appreciate paying more for content on sites they use daily.

 

[Nev_Dull]

They aren't wrong. There will be very little impact on companies that currently respect users' privacy and data. Just as a crackdown on employee theft won't have much affect on honest employees.

I don't think many sites are going away, either. They may have their profit margins lowered, but they'll take that over no profit at all.

 

[mysiteguy]

Yes. That's exactly what GDPR is doing. It's the first step in doing away with all the "nefarious sh**" that companies have gotten away with for years. Those who profit from those underhanded practices will shout and wring their hands, just like they did when the same thing happened to print, and when the same thing happened to radio, and when the same thing happened to television. And then life will go on and companies will adapt to the new way of doing things.

Print, TV and radio weren't hampered by regulation of this natures, it was changes in technology which caused adaptation.

There are many smaller operations who don't do anything nefarious, yet still must spend money to make sure they follow the letter of the law (and that's difficult because even attorneys disagree about what some things mean). Its an added cost of business for everyone, not just the nefarious players, and gives even some of the "good guys" reason to wring their hands.

Anyone who believes there isn't an added cost, well my bank account says otherwise due to clients of mine paying for me to implement letter of the law compliance.

 

[Nev_Dull]

All of those media have been subjected to regulation primarily because of advertisers making spurious claims and other dishonest practices. It took governmental intervention each time to keep them from continuing to bilk people.

I agree that complying with GDPR isn't a easy as it could be (blame typical bureaucratic obfuscation), especially for smaller companies. I acknowledge there can be costs, but that often goes with any change, be it technology, legal, or policy related.

 

[Apple]

Facebook and Google perfected it. Now, 20 years later we're trying to unring this bell.

No, they didn't. I'd more or less call it an abuse. They started doing shady ****e with our information. Stuff like selling user data to Cambridge Analytica who used it to target users politically in the USA and UK. Things like this are the reason for this law. If Facebook and people like them had truly perfected anything, this law wouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

As for your view on targetted ads, most people hate them. It's just the way it is. I would actually rather pay a subscription or give a donation to a site that I enjoy a lot than be bombarded with ridiculous ads that I'm never going to click on. Some admins that think that targetted ads are great, and call people cheapskates for blocking them, and adding tracking blocks, clearly don't understand how people think. They're annoying.

If I visit a site about dogs, just as an example. I would much rather that you had affiliate links with trusted petfood suppliers and so forth where I could buy stuff and support you than have you bombard me with ads relating to shops I've visited before, or certain scam links to chinese knock off shops. I don't click on those targetted ads. That's why I use an adblock and will continue to use one. I might have it turned off for places I like and visit a lot, but still have a no track.

 

[mysiteguy]

Funny, I went back to the Ad Blocker thread a few minutes ago to look up some info I recall being there...

One of the complaints by people who use ad blockers was "I hate that ads are NOT personalized, I don't want to see ads about X, Y, Z, I want to see ads that are targetted."

Yet another example of the real underlying issue: people want everything free, and will come up with excuses to justify it.

 

[Pete]

I think that's more of a symptom that having one solution that tries to accommodate everyone doesn't work.

On the one hand you've got the advertising - which has historically paid for a lot of things (radio, TV haven't been paid for in the US, why should the internet be?)

On the other hand, you've got people who are willing to pay for content but because there's historically been enough people that didn't want to pay, that it was deemed (and for many sites will still be the case that) it was unviable doing it that way.

And for advertising specifically, some people like targeted advertising because it shows them things they might actually buy.

Others don't like it because it either makes them feel uncomfortable that they're being spied on, or it makes them frustrated because it shows them utterly irrelevant things. I think the final straw for me was a couple of years ago when I'd buy something on Amazon and then see that same item advertised everywhere for the next two weeks. That's not targeted advertising, that's just idiocy.

 

[CarlosX360]

Not so if you use any third party products. Google Analytics, Adsense, another analytics package, third-party SMTP hosting, newsletter add-on, outside search such as Threadloom, remote backup storage, CDN, etc. Payment processing needs to be reviewed if upgrade subscriptions are offered. With WordPress, since many (probably most) sites use third-party add-ons, each needs to be reviewed.

Then the time to review terms, rules, privacy policies, etc.

Yeah, but most of that is invisible to users. But then again, they whine, and cry about small things.

 

[truthingtotruth]

Just as I did earlier with regard to browser fingerprinting I am trying to honor the idea of no duplicate threads and here was the only thread that showed in the search on this site results for supercookies.

I am trying to get some information on how many admin folks are making use of supercookies? If they even can? And, of course, wondering if anyone has a cool definition of what a supercookie is?

I figure, folks, that if I am going to start taking privacy matters seriously, I sure better learn more about this stuff.

Actually, I started this studying on basic cookie stuff last year in relation to how many cookies the new Gmail was putting into my low folder. About 5 hours ago I found The Independent was so slow to load that I went ahead and did the necessary steps to find out that site loaded 55 cookies into my low folder and that strikes me as a tad much. That then caused me to take another look at EFF's Panopticlick Project and then I thought of you folks that are actually out there on the Net using some of these tools so you can make some money.

As I wrote in the other thread where I made note of browser fingerprinting, I want to keep an open mind on all this, but 55 cookies into my low folder in about 3 minutes seems a bit much. Oh yes, and their site froze my computer's clock for about 20 seconds. That was a new one for me. And, yes, I did all sorts of screen grabs.

Anyway, now I am wondering if any of y'all use supercookies?

Of course, maybe that's not something you'd want to make public information.

Does The Admin Zone make use of supercookies?

 

[truthingtotruth]

For most people, this law is just another annoying checkbox and/or interstitial to click through to get to "20 reasons why Gwyneth Paltrow is the greatest actress ever!". Actually it makes me curious. Are EU internet users really smart? Cause the implication is that everyone in the EU is actually going to read 2-3 page legal documents (required by a vague 75 page law) and make a reasoned decision about which websites to share their information with, but everyone in the US is going to just roll their face on the keyboard.

. . . truncated . . .

I have tried a number of times to understand some of the documentation that companies place before us to agree to and in one case at Google I cited a very specific paragraph and tried very hard for over a year to get an answer on a matter and I never received the answer. It is right out there in public for all to see. I even had one of their volunteers trying to help using their special forum where they have contact with employees and that didn't work, either.

But the language of some of those documents is so strange and sort of like seeming to purposely be vague so they can then twist it into anything one of their smart legal folks can place before a judge in a courtroom.

In fact, my research on all that stuff with Google allowed me to find this one judge in Google's location within her jurisdiction that repeatedly stated that she had to rule on a point of law in their favor, but that she didn't personally like what she had to decide. That's a judge for gosh sakes. What chance do we peasant folks have?

 

[User37935]

This is a wonderful subject to debate because it will cause so many of us admins real headaches.

Because as users of other sites, we do not of course want to be fingerprinted or the subject of techniques to circumvent our privacy controls (and if you explore the research of EFF and others you'll find these techniques are currently impossible to protect against completely).

But as forum admins, we're the subject of potential fraud and criminality, not just against ourselves but other users, and I am sure I am not the only one to be abused, harassed and threatened by persons "unknown" in my tenure as a forum admin. So, we want - and arguably have a right to know - what's going on with our members, specifically, to detect multiple accounts and to gather enough real world info to identify someone, even if only to law enforcement in the event of a crime.

So who is right? Whose rights are greater here?