[bertil]

EU privacy rules are not about the horrors of web-cookies. They require asking for informed consent when you do things that are invading privacies.

All the annoying cookie pop-ups are not mandated by the EU; they are a consequence of website operators choosing to use traffic data in a way that some users might disagree with. You can easily do without. You can, and many do, make them clear and informative.

Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.

This is not just about a frustrating cookie pop-up; this is about having legal options to prevent spammy telemarketers from scamming your elderly relatives. This is about mandating a way to tell ad platforms not to sell you prams after the death of your infant, or show gambling and alcohol ads to addicts.

[shagie]

The official website for the European Union... with a cookie banner. https://european-union.europa.eu/

Surely there is a better way for the website operator to manage asking for permission for services that could be considered an invasion of privacy or avoiding using that all together.

[bertil]

And you are more than welcome to design one and submit your proposal to the Council. Note that no one here objects to asking for permission. People resent the intentionally poorly designed version that doesn’t give visitors a meaningful, informed choice. The complaints have targeted either deliberately confusing messages, modals that block access to services that don’t need invasive data processing, or pop-ups that re-appear as soon as you refuse them.

There are compliant and well-designed versions: if a website operator chooses to use a frustrating one, that’s not because the law is wrong; it’s because the operator favors their short-term profit from reselling data over convenience (which is almost always a losing bet).

[lolinder]

> Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.

Imperialism for the good of the imperial subjects is as old as time. The barbarian nations need civilizing, and if they only knew what was good for them they'd gladly embrace our regime!

Or, as CS Lewis put it:

> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.

[bertil]

You are confusing paternalism (deciding what others want without asking them) with informed democracy. I’m not saying to decide for American voters. I’m saying that, if you explain GDPR to American citizens, they overwhelmingly think it’s a good idea. I’m not saying they should think so because I know better: I’m saying that they do.

The US is welcome to use any political system they want. The current system is a government of the people, by the corporations, for the executives.

[lolinder]

No, I'm not, I think you missed the context. OP responded to this statement:

> You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws, such that you’re outraged when they don’t. Or, well, you can, but it’s either quite foolish of you, or it’s imperialistic.

By saying:

> Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.

This is false. Whether the other nations being imposed upon would embrace the laws if they simply knew what was good for them is irrelevant to whether a state action is imperialistic. What matters is the degree of consent.

There's been a strong theme in this thread of people arguing that Google should be required to do business in the EU and obey their privacy laws, and that would be imperialistic.