This is BS. People go to suburbs because they want a nice house, not because they are trying to run away from race. I grew up in a mix-race suburb. I loved my houses and my friends houses. We had great times on our cul-de-sac since it didn't allow through traffic it was safe to play in the street. We loved our backyard pool. We loved our garage that had a radial saw and a large tool desk. We loved our large 30x20ft family room where we had large slumber parties and large family parties. It requires zero racism to want a house in the suburbs.
Historically, suburbs absolutely were motivated by racism - it's called "white flight".
Today, it usually isn't about racism, it's mostly just continuing status-quo trends without question. But it's important to not put the initial motivation of those trends up on a pedestal.
Plenty of other data shows the same thing. Racism is very much a part of what built suburban america in the large even if it doesn't apply to you or your family personally.
This will go over like a lead brick in car infested suburbia.
I love a carless life in Berlin, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Paris, London, Seoul, but a carless life in Santa Clarita California? Carless like in Silicon Valley? Not gonna happen. LA, maybe a few can get buy without a car but they'd need to add Tokyo level of trains (40+ lines with express trains) before I could function without a car in a city like LA. I have friends I can generally see in 40-60 minutes that with current public transportation would take 3hrs one way.
I'm not saying we shouldn't start adding the public transportation back to LA. Of course we should. But it will be 100 years before it's anywhere close to where it needs to be for people to give up their cars.
And for suburbia, you'd have to get everyone to sell their 2-3 car tract houses so you can rebuild the cities to be more dense, and get all the stores to give up their parking lots, It's just not going to happen. :(
If I own a store and you walk into my store am I required to forget that you came into my store?
Monday:
Bill: "Hey Jane (store owner), do you have any X45 hammers?"
Jane: "Sorry Bill, I'm out but might have some tomorrow"
Tuesday:
Bill "Did hammer come in I mentioned yesterday?"
Jane: "What hammer? Sorry I'm not allowed to remember anything about people in my shop because that would be spying so whatever you said to me yesterday has been deleted from my memory"
PS: I hate spying too. I'm just not sure how to design a law to prevent it that doesn't have unintended consequences.
Law isn't like software code. It doesn't have to be put to an exhaustive set of unit tests to 100% pass rate and then worry about anything it might not have covered. The law just needs to signal intent and scope clear enough the judicial system can work with interpreting it to new applications in a way most people can consider consistent.
In the case of cookies, they simply apply to computers and not people. Why? It's not about whether the two are operationally similar it's about whether the two are practically similar. Until every shopkeep meticulously tracks every detail of every customer interaction and starts efficiently sharing them with others, all manually, often enough and at a large enough scale that it becomes a similar privacy concern it's not really worth fretting the law be generic enough to cover the use cases. In such a case it probably even makes sense to just write a separate law which meets the domain's needs more succinctly.
To hammer your point home even further, there's also the key point that in the digital world you also have entities like Meta that track you everywhere you go because they have their little tracker scripts running on almost every website.
To bring this back to the previous hypothetical, it's more like a single person following you around with a camera everywhere you go, which is already covered by existing laws.
A website run by a large corporation is very different from a store run by Jane. Jane does not have thousands or millions of people coming into her store, and she also is not selling CCTV footage from her store to advertising companies. We would be rightly outraged if she was. She also probably isn't sharing customer details or security footage with government authorities unless her store has been robbed or something.
This is a thing that these comparisons always miss.
These rules aren’t for your dream small business. It’s for a mega corp that would literally not care if you lived or died or if that hammer hit you on the head.
Those big multinationals are abusing their position I agree. I’d like to see those practices banned, HN wouldn’t because half of HN relies of predatory activities to pay their rent
Yes. In fact, you already do this most of the time. The right to be forgotten is so fundamental to humanity that humans have to expend extra effort to violate it and remember stuff. Machines with perfect memory violate the right to be forgotten by default and we have to tell them to forget things. Hence the regulation.
I would be uncomfortable if I had found out your diary contained as much about my daily travel and grocery errands as I know can be bought by marketing firms, or anyone with the right relationships in the industry. For that matter, the friendly greengrocer doesn't know what I bought at the shoe store.
Do you... write down the name of every person that walks into your store, then cross-correlate so you have nice little lists of every time each person came in and what they bought and how they looked that day? Because doing the same thing online companies get away with is generally seen as stalking in the real world.
Jane is tracking you from store to store, remembering everything you saw, everything you interacted with, everything you did, and selling that to the highest bidder
The law says that you need consent for any cookies which aren't strictly necessary for the functioning of the site.
In your instance, I would have put a backordered hammer in my cart. I come back the next day to check and see if the hammer is in stock. The cookie that enables cart behavior is necessary to the functioning of an online store. No consent needed.
In the real world, this basically means that tracking and marketing cookies are what you are being asked about. They don't need to ask about much else.
Even tracking what items you had looked at purely for the purpose of showing you things you had previously considered is trivially justifiable if its used for that feature rather to sell info to advertisers.
Not a lawyer. My impression is that you’re in any case allowed to record things in order to fulfil explicit requests (preferences, ongoing orders—like in your example), legal requirements (limited-time order history—ugh), or functional necessities (free trial used up), no explicit consent needed. Notably the bar is “required to work at all”, not “required to be profitable” or “required to use common out-of-the-box solutions”. Cloudflare or reCAPTCHA 3 would probably make interesting test cases here (my burning hate for them from the several years I needed to use a self-hosted always-on VPN aside).
The way to do this (both in ePrivacy and in GDPR, despite the different legal mechanisms they use) looks to be to write a phrase like “legitimate interest” into the main text, give illustrative examples of what that’s supposed to mean in the recitals before that, and let the courts figure out the details.
> am I required to forget that you came into my store?
No. Your head is not covered by the GDPR. It requires you to not keep a record of all your clients' personal info without a legitimate interest.
There's a Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes to buy a fancy pen at a stationery store which isn't available atm. The clerk asks for her full name and number to notify her (that's a legitimate interest) but then uses it to hit on/stalk her (that would be a GDPR violation). Presumably he also doesn't get rid of the number after their business transaction.
wat? targeting markets has been a thing forever. Rim ads in car magazines. Jewelery ads in fashion magazines. I suspect there are different ads in the sports section of a newspaper vs the business section, vs the lifestyle section.
I suspect any ads on grinder are different from ads on tinder as well.
Another prominent example KHTML forked to WebKit forked again to Blink.
I understand both points of view. Ideally if you decide to fork it and you're willing to take it up then leave a note in the issues on the original mentioning the fork. The original might decide to point to your fork or at least others can go look if your fork looks like a better fit for their needs.
That's true. Just like people by Gucci, LV, D&G etc. I was in a Prada store once and they were selling an acrylic keychain for $800. There was nothing making the chain better than any other chain except you could show off your Prada chain and I guess hope other people would know you had money to blow.
There's a context mismatch context here. EA is offering a philosophy of altruism. Where as most charities are organizations that put donations into direct action of some kind. These are different aims. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that charities that aren't as efficient as others are pushing "ineffective altruism" unless they are literally scams.
Apple does it in the app store. At least for me, search for any app by name, the top 1 or 2 results is never the app who's name I typed in exactly.
Just searched for "Netflix". First result is some app called "Chewy" (with [ad]) next to it. Search for "GitHub". First result is some app called "ServerCat". Search for "Grand Theft Auto". First result is some app call "One State RP". Search for "23andMe". First result is for "BodyFast: ..."
