HN user

ancymon

129 karma
Posts11
Comments80
View on HN

They also oppose having ads on Wikipedia. Personally I don't see much difference between banners asking for donations and ads. I understand there are "bad" ads (privacy violating or ones causing conflict of interest), but not all of them are like this. Same with cryptocurrencies - some of them are "scam", but not all of them. It's strange that Wikipedia sees world as black and white.

I think one of the reasons for user tracking is fraud detection. The moment you get rid off it, nobody would be willing to "risk" advertising on smaller, unknown websites. So maybe such ban would make monetization for small publishers much harder.

If they really needed money, they would put some ads. They claim Wikipedia must be independent and that's why there are banner free. But for me it does not make sense, I am sure you can have business relation without compromising values.

I am not sure what exactly do you mean is not true. But in fact the article you linked says about pre-gdpr cookie consent. So it kind of contradicts what I said. But in practice to gather such consent it was allowed to say "if you don't consent, please disable cookies in your browser" and that's what I meant about "I understand" button. Regarding the exempt for this notification, I am not sure if CF cookies should be considered as strictly necessary.

But the regulator guide is about GDPR. And it's consistent with what I wrote - GDPR law does not require consent for such cookies. So the regulator is ok with no consent.

Apart from GDPR law, there's also separate EU Cookie Legislation which was passed before GDPR. This regulation require clear user notification (not consent) that cookies are used. As far as I know (but I might be wrong, I don't follow it) this law is still in place and GDPR did not replace it. So that means you still need cookie notification banner (but not with "I accept" button but with "I understand").

You might be kind of wrong. I think you don't need consent. But the cookie law still requires notification banner (which is basically the same thing). That's because cookie usage by itself (no matter the purpose) requires notification.

You don't really need own email server to solve such problem. If only you had own domain, you could have moved it to different provider and still have access to the services which require your email address.

By the way, I often hear how it's good for privacy to use (basically all the time) such VPNs. But my experience so far is that using internet via popular VPNs is annoying. Some websites won't let you in, you get a lot of random CAPTCHAs to solve (e.g. to get Google results) and it seems you can lose email account. For me it's too much hassle.

OAuth 3 6 years ago

Isn't it other way around? Authentication is about confirming one's identity and that's what oAuth is used for. Authorization is about giving proper permissions and that's what happens after you get authenticated and has nothing to do with oAuth. Am I missing something?

For me Nextcould seemed overcomplicated. It's whole platform for multiple users with multiple features (e.g. calendars, contacts). It did not seem to be solution for single user who just wants dropbox alternative. But the biggest issue I had with it, I couldn't find instructions for backing it up and restoring.

So, it basicaly makes easier to avoid taxes? For example you earn in bitcoin and you now have easy way to spend it. That's probably not applicable for US citzens, but would IRSes around the world be able to get your data from coinbase?