GDPR violation

If you open the website the first time, even without login, the cookie request appear and if you check by default is set to advertisement when the GDPR explicit say the default option should be required only (and looking at the webpage should not require any cookies IMHO)

Hmm never seen a cookie request even with all the caches etc cleared.

Maybe more detail in case its a browser I dont use etc etc.

+1



ballscrewbob:
Hmm never seen a cookie request even with all the caches etc cleared.

Maybe more detail in case its a browser I dont use etc etc.

try using "private" mode. If that still does not appear, then is even worse, could be a specif bug but need to be fixed too.

testato:
+1

thanks for posting the screenshot, it is exactly what i meant

Think it is "locale" specific.
It would make more sense

Testato's picture:



...with Internet Explorer safe reference and open-in-new-tab link. :smiling_imp:

? ? ?

i have same result on Ubuntu+Chrome

None of that crap here in NZ (yet).

Does this have to do with that stupid ass-covering EU cookie law?
Every dumbass must know by now that every site tries to sell your information to whoever wants to pay for it.
If you don't want that, you shouldn't use the internet at all.
Leo..

Its an EU directive I think.
Dont ask me what I thinks of the EU as pigs in a trough sucking in member states money like its thier own piggy bank comes to mind, while making up rules without more than a brain cells worth of information to do it.

ballscrewbob:
Dont ask me what I thinks of the EU as pigs in a trough sucking in member states money like its thier own piggy bank comes to mind, while making up rules without more than a brain cells worth of information to do it.

I am a strong supporter of the EU. I would be interested to hear if you have any evidence to justify your viewpoint.

And I certainly don't think that rules aimed at protecting our privacy by requiring explicit consent to cookies are a bad thing. If they don't have equivalent rules in your country then shame on your law makers.

...R

Unfortunately Robin the reports of misspending and lack of accounts or accountability are everywhere.
Going so far as in some cases to self justification that they dont need to comply with accounting rules.

Even thier own accounts teams are at a loss on it

Point is how can you make rules for others when you dont follow rules in the first place ?

ballscrewbob:
Unfortunately Robin the reports of misspending and lack of accounts or accountability are everywhere.

I have not studied your link but, even if it is correct, where do they do that sort of thing better?

...R

Major difference between "minor" accounting errors and over 400 BILLION methinks Robin.
So as to where they do better leaves a lot of options on the table from business to as far as countries even.

But YES I get your drift and the US is first to mind as to how not to do business in politricks

My problem with laws like these is that they are all knee-jerk and no real substance. Sure you've made people tell when they're using cookies. If you think that solves anything about privacy or safety on the internet then you don't understand how technology works. In just a few short years it will be a moot point. People will stop using cookies and move on to some other technique now that you've made cookies inconvenient. I don't know what it is, but I am absolutely certain that the replacement for the cookie has already been invented and at least one person has figured out how to revolutionize everything with it and at least one other person has figured out how to use it to rip a bunch of people off. It's human nature that's the problem, not the tech-du-jour.

ballscrewbob:
But YES I get your drift

Thank you.

...R

Delta_G:
My problem with laws like these ...

I see that you wisely deleted the the bit about leaving the judges to figure it out for themselves :slight_smile:

...R

No, I still think letting judges decide what is or is not a scam is better than trying to anticipate the laws. The part I wanted to delete was the part about words because I don't think you can count on everyone to read that bit for what it was and not just see that a certain word was mentioned and suddenly decide to be offended.

I really do think that with some crimes it isn't possible to write a law ahead of time to capture every possible instance. It's not like this with things that are perfectly black and white, like murder. You either killed the guy or you didn't. But with something like a scam where there is a HUGE gray area between obvious scam and perfectly legit, you do better to rely on the fact that you know one when you see one. Especially when measuring after the fact. Otherwise you get so many instances of both people who are obviously scamming but managed to skirt the law and get away and also instances of people who had perfectly legit motives but happened to miss one fine point of the law as written.

I'm reminded of the little girl here in the US who was recently arrested for running a lemonade stand without a business license. I think we can all see that she wasn't a threat to our way of life, but technically she did break the law. And I think the law should be allowed to see that sort of thing and not just blindly apply words of men and women that could never have forseen the situation they're being applied to.

I also believe that these sorts of things should be more local in nature. We should as a community be able to decide what is best and right in our community. And we should have the state there to handle matters between communities.

The problem with a single government system for everyone is that if you don't like it you're stuck. In the old days if you didn't like how your community did things you could move somewhere else. Now, you can't get away from it. THEY decide this is right and that is wrong and if you don't like it tough. It would be fine if human nature was always altruistic. But it isn't. Majority rule for a whole nation sucks if you're not part of the majority. Ask any of the many African Americans struggling to deal with laws written specifically to target them in the US today. Well, the majority wanted it so it is right... at least that is how this system sees it. And that's not always the case.

Local control doesn't guarantee that everything gets done right, but it does mean that the wrongs tend not to be on quite as large of a scale.

Delta_G:
No, I still think letting judges decide what is or is not a scam is better than trying to anticipate the laws.

Judges are not immune from bribery and corruption any more than anyone else. Among other things laws allow us to hold the judges to account.

However my comment about laws to regulate cookies arose from concerns about breaches of privacy rather than the activity of criminal scammers. of course if it make life a bit more difficult for the scammers, so much the better.

...R

Yes judge says can be bribed. But which is worse, a local judge gets bribed and the people in one town suffer for it, or a legislator gets bribed and everyone in the whole country suffers for it? At least with judges you gotta spread your bribes around a bit. Right now there’s a one stop shop.

And your point about cookies was exactly my point. It won’t protect privacy, at least not for long. Now, cookies are a little more inconvenient. But the problems that they originally solved still remain. Pretty soon there will be something that helps to solve those same problems but doesn’t bother you with a pop-up every time. People will love it. They are already hating the pop-up ( see another thread in this section). Once that thing comes out it will be safe. Until it isn’t. Until someone figures out how to use it to breach your privacy. Then we will wait for years until they make a new law and push that thing out of vogue and something even newer and more dangerous comes along. That law will literally push things down the path to less privacy. You watch.

Delta_G:
Yes judge says can be bribed. But which is worse, a local judge gets bribed and the people in one town suffer for it, or a legislator gets bribed and everyone in the whole country suffers for it?

The difference is that judges often work alone whereas legislators (in democracies) don’t.

I am not claiming the “rule” system is perfect, or even good - just the best that is available. And I have no doubt that there are some silly laws, and laws that people don’t like, but having been a civil servant helping to create laws I do believe that the people who create them do so with the best of intentions.

…R