Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Have you updated your website's privacy policy to meet GDPR standards? (Poll)
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Have you updated your website's privacy policy to meet GDPR standards? (Poll)

codetech12codetech12 Member
edited June 2018 in Providers

I am a small hosting provider and haven't updated my privacy policy yet. I want to know whether you providers have bothered to update your privacy policy or not.

Poll not found
    «1

    Comments

    • FalzoFalzo Member

      poll not found (GDPR doesn't allow) :-D

    • defaultdefault Veteran
      edited June 2018

      @codetech12 said:
      I am a small hosting provider and haven't updated my privacy policy yet.

      Be careful, GDPR regulation staff is watching you can close down your poll before you even get to see the results, as this this poll can be considered as an attempt of not wanting to embrace General Data Protection Regulation of EU.

    • HybridHybrid Member

      Nop, we don't care

      Thanked by 1skbenterprise
    • FHRFHR Member, Host Rep

      Yeah, it's worth it.

      Thanked by 1Claverhouse
    • BlaZeBlaZe Member, Host Rep

      Yep. Thanks to WHMCS which released the blog post and it helped in the process of becoming GDPR compliant.

      Thanked by 1agentmishra
    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

      took 10 minutes, so why not.

      Thanked by 1Claverhouse
    • TionTion Member

      Not gonna lie we ignore the cookie crap. The cookie notice annoys users and every modern browser can block all or third-party cookies so if the user cares he would've blocked them anyway. The EU itself noticed how retarded these notifications are and plan to fix this with their ePrivacy stuff next year.

      Thanked by 1raindog308
    • @Tion said:
      Not gonna lie we ignore the cookie crap. The cookie notice annoys users and every modern browser can block all or third-party cookies so if the user cares he would've blocked them anyway. The EU itself noticed how retarded these notifications are and plan to fix this with their ePrivacy stuff next year.

      The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

    • TionTion Member

      @Hoost said:
      The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Counting on herd immunity. Let the Facebooks, Googles and Amazons tell the users cookies are a thing.

      Thanked by 1bdspice
    • @Tion said:

      @Hoost said:
      The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Counting on herd immunity. Let the Facebooks, Googles and Amazons tell the users cookies are a thing.

      Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

    • deankdeank Member, Troll

      We have updated our privacy policy.

      Thanked by 1vedran
    • TionTion Member

      @Hoost said:
      Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

      Small local business with no competition. Who is going to call authorities which are drowning in reports right now? Will play the black sheep until ePrivacy hits. If nothing changes I will think about the cookie notice again.

    • @default said:

      Be careful, GDPR regulation staff is watching you can close down your poll before you even get to see the results, as this this poll can be considered as an attempt of not wanting to embrace General Data Protection Regulation of EU.

      lol, IDGAF

    • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

      Hoost said: The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Dude, it's fucking stupid.

      Hoost said: Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

      I think you mean prosecution.

      And...name one?

      BTW, LET doesn't have a cookie warning...OMFG.

    • emghemgh Member

      @raindog308 said:

      Hoost said: The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Dude, it's fucking stupid.

      Hoost said: Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

      I think you mean prosecution.

      And...name one?

      BTW, LET doesn't have a cookie warning...OMFG.

      Don’t you even dare.

      Thanked by 2Aidan codetech12
    • deankdeank Member, Troll

      Someone should sue LET. We have a lot of armchair lawyers here.

    • squibssquibs Member

      If they get all sue-ey, they will have bigger fish to fry than me and my clients. GDPR is about telling folks what you collect on them, for how long and why you need it, and giving them the ability to see or delete what you've got on them. If you give a sh*t about your customers, you already respect their data and a privacy policy doesn't mean squat.

      I'm doing nothing until I see what way the wind's blowing, or my clients specifically request it - a policy that worked just fine with the old cookie law.

    • HxxxHxxx Member

      Block users from that region. Specially if your website is not there for the use of those users.

    • FHRFHR Member, Host Rep

      @Hxxx said:
      Block users from that region. Specially if your website is not there for the use of those users.

      Geo-blocking is the most stupid thing you can do.

      Thanked by 1Aidan
    • HxxxHxxx Member

      You actually don't have to do a thing if your website target users is not EU or EEA. Ex: Your shop dont accept Euros and don't ship or accept orders from that region.

      But Geo blocking is a more efficient way to say, this website is not for you.

      @FHR said:

      @Hxxx said:
      Block users from that region. Specially if your website is not there for the use of those users.

      Geo-blocking is the most stupid thing you can do.

    • mkshmksh Member

      @raindog308 said:

      Hoost said: The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Dude, it's fucking stupid.

      To most funny thing about the cookie notice garbage is that at the time the law was made flash cookies were all the rage. Now you have dom local storage and friends. None of these pretty vile things need a notice. Not to mention finger printing. This is more than fucking stupid.

    • AidanAidan Member

      Nope & never will be.

      Thanked by 2Eased MasonR
    • @raindog308 said:

      Hoost said: The cookie crap is to inform users. Not all users are going to know how to block cookies, hence its existence.

      Dude, it's fucking stupid.

      I didn't disagree with that bit mate. Alternatives would be better.

      Hoost said: Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

      I think you mean prosecution.

      And...name one?

      BTW, LET doesn't have a cookie warning...OMFG.

      Grand Britannia. Docs state it's usually a fine. Not that I've seen cases.

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider
      edited June 2018

      mksh said: To most funny thing about the cookie notice garbage is that at the time the law was made flash cookies were all the rage. Now you have dom local storage and friends. None of these pretty vile things need a notice. Not to mention finger printing. This is more than fucking stupid.

      Bullshit. There has never been a 'cookie law'; it has always been about any kind of persistent identifier. That includes Local Storage, and that includes fingerprinting. Those need a notice just as well. What it doesn't include is functional identifiers, ie. those strictly necessary for correct operation of a site.

      The 'cookie law' thing has been massively blown out of proportion from the very start; if you weren't actively tracking users and didn't use third-party services that were, then you didn't have to show a cookie warning at all. That's always been the case. It's just been misrepresented - in particular by people from the marketing industry who were pissed that they could no longer just track people.

      Predictably, because this wasn't prohibited by said law, people put up blocking 'cookie walls'; ie. you had to agree to cookies or couldn't use the site. This is a large part of why the average user considered the law stupid, but the reason for its stupidity lies in people exploiting a loophole in the original law, not in the law itself being unreasonable.

      The GDPR tries to fix that, by making such 'tracking consent' something that needs to be voluntarily agreed to, ie. you can no longer tell people that "you can't use the site if you don't agree". In other words, the GDPR aims to solve the very problem with the cookie law that people have been complaining about.

      I don't know why people keep blathering on about this shit without taking 30 minutes out of their day to read up on how it actually works.

      </rant>

    • angstromangstrom Moderator
      edited June 2018

      @joepie91 said: [ending rant tag]

      Not clear where the rant began.

    • any good link for an English text?

    • And the result is cookiebot probably making a sh*t ton of money.

    • YmpkerYmpker Member

      @Tion said:

      @Hoost said:
      Sure, up to you if you want to avoid legislation in certain countries.

      Small local business with no competition. Who is going to call authorities which are drowning in reports right now? Will play the black sheep until ePrivacy hits. If nothing changes I will think about the cookie notice again.

      In Germany it's not the authorities coming for your money it is "Abmahnanwälte"/lawyers who make their money by (automatically) scanning websites for issues with their gdpr compliance and sorta "report" them to pay some hundreds of € and sign a form to not do it again. They don't need the authorities dedicated to gdpr to do that. They can do that individually then eventually drag you to court if you don't comply. I think this is mostly a german thing but it sux for us germans xD

      Thanked by 2SolusVM Claverhouse
    • mkshmksh Member
      edited June 2018

      @joepie91 said:
      I don't know why people keep blathering on about this shit without taking 30 minutes out of their day to read up on how it actually works.

      You got me there. Point taken. Guess it comes down to ignorance on my side. I seriously didn't know the law extended to anything beyond cookies. Still i see this law as annoying and counterproductive. It did little but giving people a false sense of security. Might have been better to educate the average user about the various tracking possibilities and how to counter them. I mean who even knew flash cookies were a thing or had any idea how to remove them?

    • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

      mksh said: Still i see this law as annoying and counterproductive. It did little but giving people a false sense of security.

      I agree. But it's important to recognize that that was due to the implementation, and not due to the intention. That's why I'm happy that the GDPR disallows this 'blocking cookie wall' bullshit, as it's basically fixing the implementation, even if a bunch of organizations haven't gotten the memo and still try to do it.

      I'd like to see them dinged under the GDPR for that.

      mksh said: Might have been better to educate the average user about the various tracking possibilities and how to counter them. I mean who even knew flash cookies were a thing or had any idea how to remove them?

      Realistically: it just isn't possible as an end user to counter tracking measures reliably. The simple and obvious ones, yes, sure; but the problem with the marketing industry (ie. the industry behind tracking being a thing) is that it behaves as a malicious actor with deep pockets; they go very far to track people, at pretty much any cost.

      The moment fingerprinting is used to track people, you've basically lost the game as an end user, and the industry has failed to self-legislate. And that's where legislation needs to step in; and now it does.

      angstrom said: Not clear where the rant began.

      Clearly you haven't read the new version of the LETML specification. Rant opening tags are no longer required, and are considered to be implicit!

      Thanked by 2angstrom Claverhouse
    Sign In or Register to comment.