Excuse me while I, sorry, need to express my desire to expand shareholder sensual fuck holes

Fuck ads, obviously, but I can understand there's confusion here.

If GPC says "do not sell my data", but the user subsequently opts in via the cookie banner (or vice-versa), you have two conflicting signals. There's no clear case law or anything that says what to do. Or what should happen if the same user sends different GPC signals depending on their device or browser.

Although I guess the easiest solution is just "do not sell data if any signal suggests it's not allowed", but that doesn't line advertisers' pockets I guess.

cry into the void, fuckers

“GPC is just going to be layered in on top of the existing consent-management platform,” Butler said. If a user sends a GPC opt-out request to a website through a browser but then engages with the provider on a different platform or on a system with a different configuration, “it can get legitimately confusing.”

No it doesn't. I opted out. I never opted back in. Just because I stopped sending you the signal on one device doesn't mean you get to start tracking me again. Turns out the only solution to your problem is to stop fucking tracking everything everyone is doing.

Selling personal data won't stop until companies start getting fines that are a significant percentage of gross revenue and their executives start getting prison sentences for selling the data without explicit consent.

GPC sounds cute but we all know companies will ignore it unti heads start literally rolling. It's in their nature. Anyway, what do Tor Browser and Librewolf say about it? I could not find any reference in Librewolf site about GPC ,and it's important to know if and how much does toggling the signal raise your fingerprint profile.

Just disallow cookies at visitation. No need to pretend to opt out.

I have difficulty parsing that headline. Time to read more:

The Global Privacy Control allows surfers to signal their privacy preferences through a simple browser setting communicated to each website they visit. California, Colorado, and at least three other states now require websites to honor GPC signals, and many more are expected to adopt the requirement in coming years.

So far so good. And the first time I'm hearing about this. I hope it makes the rounds.

The GPC appears simple for consumers, but it arrives in an online environment dominated by a separate consent-management platform—the cookie banner. Its implementation promises new compliance headaches for online businesses, especially those that operate on more than one platform or channel, according to Alan Butler, chief executive officer of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The fuck? It requires a few extra lines of code instead of calling a slew of scripts from a third party that they probably have some sort of contract with so they need to make sure the data still flows?

“GPC is just going to be layered in on top of the existing consent-management platform,” Butler said. If a user sends a GPC opt-out request to a website through a browser but then engages with the provider on a different platform or on a system with a different configuration, “it can get legitimately confusing.”

It gets "legitimately confusing" if you still want to continue your business of data harvesting, yes.

Cheesus, that's some lawyer talk right there.

Oh no, the corporations are experiencing "challenges" spying on their users!? The horror! Unprecedented!

How about when just ban fucking tracking and spying so we don't have to deal with so many different privacy control implementations.