[fauigerzigerk]

>I don't think it's too misleading, because in the absence of any other information, they are the same.

But other information not being absent we know that they are not the same. Just compare privacy policies for instance. The cookie law makes them appear similar in spite of the fact that they are very different (as of now - who knows what will happen to the NHS).

[grues-dinner]

I do understand the point, but other then allowing a process of auditing to allow a middle ground of consent implied for first-party use only and within some strictly defined boundaries, what else can you do? It's a market for lemons in terms of trustworthy data processors. 90% (bum-pull figures, but lines up with the number of websites that play silly buggers with hiding the no-consent button) of all people who want to use data will be up to no good and immediately try to bend and break every rule.

I would also be in favour of companies having to report all their negative data protection judgements against them and everyone they will share your data with in their cookie banner before giving you the choice as to whether you trust them.

[fauigerzigerk]

If any rule is going to be broken and impossible to enforce, how can that be a justification for keeping a bad rule rather than replacing it with more sensible one?

[grues-dinner]

I said they'd try to break them. Which requires vigilance and regulators stepping in with an enormous hammer. So far national regulators have been pretty weaksauce which is indeed very frustrating.

I'm not against improving the system, and I even proposed something, but I am against letting data abusers run riot because the current system isn't quite 100% perfect.

I'll still take what we have over what we had before (nothing, good luck everyone).