Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security by JCWasmx86 on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:36AM (#31896060)

> I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.

Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used.

This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security by spideymans on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:48AM (#31896237)

Yup, that would work.

I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the current regulations. However I can’t help but feel that the “loopholes” in the current regulations were intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate friends to exploit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security by IX-103 on Monday June 27, 2022 @03:27PM (#31899555)

"only technically necessary cookies" That doesn't really help preserve privacy. There are so many techniques for tracking, detectable and undetectable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security by JCWasmx86 on Monday June 27, 2022 @04:02PM (#31900017)

I formulated it a bit to informal, I meant, that the website should just don't collect data from me unless it is really needed. (E.g. Tracking identifiers are not needed or collecting fingerprints from WebCanvas and so on)

[ Parent | on HN ]