| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago |
| Europe’s (really Ireland’s) lacklustre enforcement of GDPR means it has hurt European companies (which at least try to comply) without even meaningfully improving privacy. Subject access requests are fun at least. |
|
| ▲ | snickerbockers a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| How enforceable is GDPR against foreigners anyways? FANGs are motivated to comply because any sufficiently large corporation will inevitably have assets that the EU can freeze, but otherwise it's just a limp-dick attempt at exerting sovereignty well beyond their borders which will get laughed out of any court. |
| |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m an eu citizen in Europe concerned with data practices of European entities so I don’t care about how it might be limited outside the EU. | |
| ▲ | bacr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | GDPR isn’t enforceable against foreign companies. It is enforceable against subsidiaries registered within the EU. Living in Germany means you are doing business with Google GmbH (or likely, the Irish subsidiary). Don’t want to comply with German law? Then Google GmbH must exit the German market. |
|
|
| ▲ | mnky9800n a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes gdpr could be good. But instead it’s a cookies warning. |
| |
| ▲ | qwertox a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Cookie warnings are a sign of companies not willing to accept that they cannot just collect data on you and monetize it. How does that make the EU regulation something bad? The bad thing is that the companies are willing to bombard us with the worst possible cookie banners, in order to monetize our visits. Maybe the next EU regulation should be to prohibit those banners and allow companies to add a small toggle somewhere on their site so we can toggle it to allow them to set 3rd-party cookies. | | |
| ▲ | petcat a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > The bad thing is that the companies are willing to bombard us with the worst possible cookie banners, in order to monetize our visits. The EU's own government websites [1] are littered with the same cookie banners. They want the visitor data just as bad as everyone else. > Maybe the next EU regulation We don't need anymore EU regulations seeing how bad and thoughtless they already are. [1] https://european-union.europa.eu/ | | |
| ▲ | qwertox a day ago | parent | next [-] | | -> [Accept all cookies] [Accept only essential cookies] at the bottom of the page. Sure, I don't understand why they don't remove it if they know that an average-iq'd person would accept only essential cookies, but that cookie banner belongs to the top 5% of friendly cookie banners. I was talking about those you find on the typical website, usually news sites, who make them as annoying as possible. | |
| ▲ | eps a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > _We_ don't need anymore EU regulations seeing how bad and thoughtless ... Try and speak for yourself. No need to speak on everyone's behalf, this is disingenuous. |
| |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s bad because they’re not enforcing it. Have the law and enforce it or don’t have the law. |
| |
| ▲ | ascorbic a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cookie warnings are from the ePrivacy directive. | |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cookie warnings predate gdpr actually. (Random discussion from 16 years ago - https://www.theregister.com/2009/11/25/cookie_law/) The funny thing is 99% of cookie dialogs are illegal anyway (it should be opt in, not opt out) | |
| ▲ | moi2388 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, those two are completely separate laws | |
| ▲ | juliangmp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I never understood the crying about the cookie banners They're not the problem, they never have been. It's the fact that so many parts of the modern internet rely on selling user data to make a profit, not the regulation that they now have to do the outrageous thing and (gasp) ask for consent first. | | |
| ▲ | immibis a day ago | parent [-] | | The problem with GDPR and cookie banners is that GDPR allows the cookie banners to be worded so indirectly. "To improve our service we share collected information with 5723 partners..." If the law would force them to say "Do you want Larry Ellison to get richer by looking through your webcam? [Yes] [No]" it would be a good law. | | |
| ▲ | MiddleEndian a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Ideally it would just be like the Do Not Track flag, with one flag for each category of opt-out tracking, but actually enforced (even if on by default) so no popups would be needed at all. | |
| ▲ | CalRobert a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn’t. That’s violating gdpr. But you can break gdpr without consequences. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jwr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | GDPR has nothing to do with cookies, in spite of the commonly spread false narrative. |
|
|
| ▲ | hexbin010 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I wonder why Ireland has such lackluster enforcement of GDPR... Oh, aren't many of big tech's EU HQs in Ireland? |
| |
| ▲ | omnimus a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not only about GDPR. It's even more about profit shifting and low taxation of big tech. Ireland has been selling out EU on digital front for over a decade. | | |
| ▲ | af78 a day ago | parent [-] | | Taxation is only part of the picture. Quoting from https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/13/uncle-sucker/: In the EU, they've had the GDPR – a big, muscular privacy law – for nine years, and all it's really done is drown the continent in cookie-consent pop-ups. But that's not because the GDPR is flawed, it's because Ireland is a tax-haven that has lured in the world's worst corporate privacy-violators, and to keep them from moving to another tax haven (like Malta or Cyprus or Luxembourg), it has to turn itself into a crime-haven. So for the entire life of the GDPR, all the important privacy cases in Europe have gone to Ireland, and died there: https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/01/erin-go-blagged/#big-tech... Now, again, this isn't a complicated technical question that is hard to resolve through regulation. It's just boring old corruption. I'm not saying that corruption is easy to solve, but I am saying that it's not complicated. Irish politicians made the country's economy dependent on the Irish state facilitating criminal activity by American firms. The EU doesn't want to provoke a constitutional crisis by forcing Ireland (and the EU's other crime-havens) to halt this behavior. | | |
| ▲ | hexbin010 a day ago | parent [-] | | Wow he did NOT mince his words. I've not seen the situation described like that ever. Thanks for sharing |
|
|
|