Many folks assumed DNT is useless. Yet here we are comenting in a thread about a court that is making it legally enforceable.
How exactly do you legally enforce "each link must not be a unique UUID generated per-user or per-page-view"? Do you mandate how "generic" a link has to be, such that a visit to that link exposes less than a certain amount of information about that visit? What about things like order-specific links on a shopping website, that will naturally identify an account if all orders share the same namespace?
Simplified it says: if you collect personal information, you need to ask for consent. If someone doesn't consent they must not receive degraded service. Now there has been a ruling that the Do Not Track info users send you shall be honored by you (duh).
This is true regardless of how you technically do it. So UUID URLs are okay, storing which IP adresses shared an UUID link with which other IP without consent is not.
I think some in the IT world need to finally stop making excuses and stop coming up with new illegal ways of tracking users on a personal level. Just use the same creative energy for finding ways of pseudonymizing and anonymizing users (where possible — depending on what you are collecting deanonymization might always be possible).
The truth is, that we had some rulings on what is considered personal data and what isn't and IP adresses, even parts of them can be regarded as such. Now you and I might think this is silly etc., but if we write software for corporations that have to pay fines as a feaction of their total revenue not knowing that can easily ruin our lives.
And I am merely reflecting the way how these laws have been interpreted and ruled on so far in the comment section for an article on, well another ruling by a court. Legal reality, like physical reality doesn't go away if you close your eyes.
Is this what you originally meant?
Nontheless I hope you can see in which way the whole thing is still deeply connected to the legal question of how one can still learn about their service without tracking single users when they don't give their consent, maybe now even via DNT header.
That is personal information.
Ugh, please don't give them any ideas
So as long as you are collecting personal information, there is no legal difference whether you do it via cookies or another different mechanism.
I'm an external auditor. The GDPR is a cash grab.
Regulations that actually incentivize organizations toward stronger privacy and protection practices are designed more like HIPAA or PCI where the MAGNITUDE OF THE BREACH is the primary factor determining the monetary fines imposed (e.g.,number of records exposed, was it PII, PHI, etc.).
Taking 4% of the company's annual revenue from the previous year, irrespective of the size of the breach, results in a regulation about as effective as clicking those cookie consent boxes. "Oh thank goodness I gave my consent, I think now we can all rest easy that our data is being handled securely and appropriately!" No, the EU included the ticky tacky consent requirement to create major global visibility about itself so that when a company doing business with the EU has a breach, they won't be surprised when they then get an additional bill from the EU for not only having the breach, but now being in violation of the GDPR too.
The GDPR is a despicable joke. And my use of 'the' gives me the right to that opinion. If anyone else out there was involved in GDPR's creation or implementation, I think you would agree:
GDPR owns the Greatest Dung Pile Record, Grandma's Dildo Paste Replenisher, the Gagging Damaged Penis Rectum and one Gigabyte of Dick Punch Radiation in addition to €2.83 billion (as of 12/2022) collected from breached companies in 1,401 cases for "violating the GDPR".
The other option would be to have fixed fines that Google et al. pay out of their small change, while it absolutly would torch their small competition.
Sure, they could also jail CEOs for this. I would also be for that.
If a fine doesn't grow with the income it is a fee. So if you want a corporation to follow your law, it needs to come with a fine that motivates those in charge enough to follow it. Money is the soft option there.
It is totally possible to run websites in compliance with GDPR. I built multiple that require no consent whatsoever, because guess what: No personal data is collected, where it is not absolutely technically required.
For me as an EU citizen the GDPR turned my data-related communications with companies from essentially begging into the void, to actually getting a response.
The GDPR doesn't mandate fines of 4% regardless of the nature of the breach. That's the maximum size of the fine.
You should go ahead and actually read the text of the GDPR. Specifically, Article 83.
Paragraph 1 states that "the imposition of administrative fines [...] in respect of infringements of this Regulation [...] shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive".
Paragraph 2 lists eleven factors that the SAs have to have regard to when setting fines, and top of the list is "the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into account the nature scope or purpose of the processing concerned as well as the number of data subjects affected and the level of damage suffered by them".