Like with GDPR where people imagined all sorts of situations ad absurdum (the grocer on the corner not being allowed to ask for your birthday anymore to give you a yearly free product or some such), these laws generally have exceptions for things where it makes sense. They aren't cooked up overnight in isolation and aren't the oneliner that you read online. I would expect that your mentioned exceptional example probably has an exception cases defined for it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> these laws generally have exceptions for things where it makes sense. They aren't cooked up overnight in isolation and aren't the oneliner that you read online. I would expect that your mentioned exceptional example probably has an exception cases defined for it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As is usually the case with legislation, the text of the law will support whatever reading you'd like to assign to it. If you're a booster for the legislation, you are free to claim that it doesn't have any problems. If you're not, there are some readily observable problems.
> [definition] (23) ‘appliance’ means any electrical or electronic equipment, as defined by Directive 2012/19/EU, which is fully or partly powered by a battery or is capable of being so
> Article 11
> 1. Portable batteries incorporated in appliances shall be readily removable and replaceable by the end-user or by independent operators during the lifetime of the appliance, if the batteries have a shorter lifetime than the appliance, or at the latest at the end of the lifetime of the appliance.
> A battery is readily replaceable where, after its removal from an appliance, it can be substituted by a similar battery, without affecting the functioning or the performance of that appliance.
> 2. The obligations set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply where
> (a) continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the appliance and the portable battery is required for safety, performance, medical or data integrity reasons; or
> (b) the functioning of the battery is only possible when the battery is integrated into the structure of the appliance.
> 3. The Commission shall adopt guidance to facilitate harmonised application of the derogations set out in paragraph 2.
So the law literally says "(1) all appliances must use removable, replaceable batteries, UNLESS (2) that would be bad, AND (3) we promise we will eventually set a standard for when it would or wouldn't be bad". But that hypothetical future standard is not part of the law. And we can't honestly say that "don't do something, unless you have a good reason" is a law that can actually be implemented. It will misidentify bad reasons as good reasons while punishing good reasons.
Yes because a 99 section 11 chapter law whose only affect is to make the web worse with cookie banners everywhere is a model of government effectiveness.
This is what I mean: apparently even tech people still don't know the basics of GDPR.
If it were common knowledge that cookie walls are not required for any normal website operation or statistics keeping, but only a thing required for invasive tracking, then any website introducing one would face questions and media attention rather than it being the norm. The law requires cookie walls exactly nowhere, it requires to ask for consent before doing something you have no valid reason for doing.
There are 5 defined valid reasons, including "it's in the subject's interest" and "it's in our legitimate interest" and stuff like that. O-n-l-y if you can't shove it under any of those, then you need to fall back to politely asking the subject you want to track. Every cookie wall is in this category. We really shouldn't be accepting this, but try educating half a billion people speaking thirty languages who have better things to do. It's not even well-known among the tech community, which continuously surprises me. Maybe we need to outlaw consent that is not part of a bigger contract (so a random website visit, not like research or so), maybe we need to have big website owners set better examples... I don't know.
But anyway I guess I was more interested in the new battery law rather than hosting my fourtieth hacker news gdpr misconceptions session, as I've not yet read the actual legal text of the former.
Maybe it’s the fault of the EU for making the GDPR so complicated?
All a private company - Apple - had to do was create a 5 line rule change and add a setting to iOS and it the entire ad tracking industry including Facebook announced billions in losses.
Well Apple could enforce a single settings to drive all apps. The equivalent would be EU mandating by law a centralised privacy setting on browsers to state we only allow necessary cookies. That might come but some companies would have been kicking and screaming even more.
Like with GDPR where people imagined all sorts of situations ad absurdum (the grocer on the corner not being allowed to ask for your birthday anymore to give you a yearly free product or some such), these laws generally have exceptions for things where it makes sense. They aren't cooked up overnight in isolation and aren't the oneliner that you read online. I would expect that your mentioned exceptional example probably has an exception cases defined for it. Correct me if I'm wrong.