krellor @ krellor @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

Gaza or the West Bank? If both, then no and yes. Israel dismantled settlements in Gaza in 2005. Unfortunately, settlements continued in the West Bank, aggravating efforts to conclude the hand off of two of the three districts there.

Hamas is from the Gaza Strip, not the West Bank though. Gaza relations have been weird, but stabilizing with daily work travel through the border. Arguably, Hamas attacked now for fear that relations would continue to improve with Gaza, setting back their mission.

I would recommend people read the IAB ad blocker detection guide for Europe which provides a good summary of what is possible. It lays out the that depending on how the detection is done it might be defensible to rely on ToS, and to remove all risk, implement a consent banner, wall, or both.

Which is to say, even if it was ruled that YouTube can't rely on ToS, which I don't think is a sure thing, they would just have a consent wall like for cookies.

Potato rockets from Idaho, yes. Also, Northern Idaho is practically a terrorist state anyway with its history of KKK enclave and, well, general elected officials.

Likewise, about 6 hours to drive from the West Coast of Washington to the eastern border. So Israel is about an tall as Washington State is wide.

I visited Portland last year, and I have to say that the once zany vibe of the city has really eroded with their drug and homelessness crisis. Entire blocks of the city sidewalks packed building to curb with tents and people and trash. I took my boys on a trip and stopped in Seattle, Portland, LA, San Diego, and Phoenix, and Portland was easily the hardest hit.

Yep that's it. I'll double check the link in my post.

Edit: yep borked the link, fixed now. Thanks for letting me know!

One thing I'll add is I often found it helpful to glide them in which helps straighten the wires, then pull them out and trim the ends to be even. Then put back in connector, and make sure all pins touch all wire ends.

I suppose that's my point though. Most of this thread, and the page linked have been asserting clear and unequivocal violation of gdpr, but that doesn't appear to be true. It hasn't been tested or ruled on authoritatively, and the technical mechanism makes s difference as well. There is room to equivocate.

My own personal opinion is that I doubt the EU policy makers or courts will treat the mechanism to ensure the delivery of ads with as much skepticism as they treat tracking, fingerprinting, and other things that violate privacy. Courts and policy interpreters often think of the intent of a law, and I don't think the intent of GDPR was to potentially undermine ad supported business.

My goal in replying throughout the thread has been to address what feels like misinformation via misplaced certainty. I'm all for explicit consent walls, but most people in this thread don't seem to be taking an objective look at things.

Here is a guide from a publisher trade group on the implementation of ad block detectors under gdpr.

It says that listing the use in your ToS is a defensible strategy but could have some risk. If the organization wants to further limit risk, they can add a consent banner, consent wall, or both.

My guess is Google is the risk accepting type on this issue and it's willing to litigate to argue that its ToS is sufficient or the way they implement it differs from cookies. Either way, they could completely make this go away by asking a consent for ad delivery to their cookie notice.

That is addressed in the source I linked, which is an industry groups advice to publishers on the implementation of ad block detector. They specifically say that having it listed in your ToS is a defensible strategy but could have some risk. To mitigate the risk, you can introduce either a consent banner, consent wall, or both.

It's an interesting read, and something I wish I'd had a few years ago in a prior role when I wrote my organizations gdpr strategy, though I'm not an expert on EU specific law.

All they need to implement ad block detection is user consent, which they likely cover on their terms of service and privacy policy.

Source

That doesn't appear to be correct.

Executive Summary
• Ad blocker detection is not illegal, but might, under a strict interpretation of the ePrivacy Directive be regulated and require the informed consent of users.

• Depending on the technical implementation of ad blocker detection, such detection may be out of scope of the consent requirement of the ePrivacy Directive, or fall within an exemption to the consent requirement. But the legal situation is not very clear.

• Publishers who use ad blocker detection should update their privacy policy to
include use of ad blocker detection scripts.

• Publishers may want to err on the side of caution and obtain consent for the use of ad blocker detection scripts to preempt and avoid any legal challenges.

• Publishers could obtain consent by slightly modifying their existing compliance mechanisms for the use of cookies as the possible new consent requirement
emanates from the same law mandating consent for the use of cookies.

• Publishers could use two practical solutions to request and obtain consent for
the use of ad blocker detection: a consent banner or a consent wall.
Publishers could also make use of a combination of the two to complement
each other.

Source

I would agree. From the outside it makes it look like fragmentation within the union.

But he didn't cite policy, law, or legal analysis. I work as a technology policy writer/interpreter in the US so I can't address the EU issues. But I've never responded to someone who asked for the basis of my conclusion by listing my credentials. When I publish a policy position paper, I cite chapter and verse all relevant laws, policies, statutes, and explanation for interpretation. I've written entire pages offering justification for the interpretation of a single sentence a particular way. He didn't do that. He might be right, but he didn't justify it in any meaningful way.

This is true. And I'll disclaim again that I'm not an expert on EU law or policy. But I'm not familiar with a US policy or law that would preclude that consent to collection from being a condition of use. I've written these policies for organizations, and I think it will be a difficult argument to make. I'd love to read an analysis by a lawyer or policy writer who specializes in the EU.

You consent to their terms of service and privacy policy when you access their website by your continued use. They disclose the collection of browser behavior and more in the privacy policy. I suspect they are covered here but I don't specialize in EU policy.

That sounds like the digital notary process.

Definitely a quantity vs quality trade-off here.

Proof by intimidation:

• is left as an exercise for the reader.
• can be trivially shown.
• as shown in many introductory texts.

You can specify the organization to receive your body, though some have prescreening.

Generally speaking, bodies donated to science don't end up being tested with ordinance. The consent waiver limits how the body can be used and is generally narrowed to medical research. One example where this didn't happen was here and the company founder was tried for fraud.

My suggestion for people is to find an organization that directly accepts donated bodies and go through their prescreening to bypass the body broker business.