|
|
|
|
|
by nickpp
703 days ago
|
|
That “we” was the lawyer’s “we”. But their point stands: tools change and even if we understand and trust their specs and descriptions now, those change too inevitably in the future. A bad law, an ambiguous law compels you to be defensive and take precautions. Cookie banners are one of many such defenses and everybody seems to be doing it, validating our strategy. Thanks for your advice, but unless you are willing to defend me in court and put your money where your mouth is, with all due respect, I will consider its value to be exactly how much I paid for it. |
|
On the other hand they probably realise there's zero chance for substantial review of your GDPR practices by the regulator (much less seeing them in court), so they can recommend sticking a useless plaster (opt-in has to be specific, and how can it be specific if you collect it for unknown future changes) and keep you in the dark about more substantial requirements.
GDPR is a very good and clearly stated law, you can read through it yourself in about half an hour to an hour, a negligible time investment for such an important piece of legislation. The purported ambiguity is a psyop by people who don't want to comply.
[1]: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-28-gdpr/