Global Privacy Control (GPC) is a browser or extension setting that signals a user's intent to opt out of the sale of their personal information, as defined by various privacy laws like CCPA and GDPR. Websites and businesses that respect GPC should interpret it as a "Do Not Sell" request and suppress the sale of user data. While not legally mandated everywhere, adopting GPC provides a standardized way for users to express their privacy preferences across the web, offering greater control over their data. Widespread adoption by browsers and websites could simplify privacy management for both users and businesses and contribute to a more privacy-respecting internet ecosystem.
EFF warns that age verification laws, ostensibly designed to restrict access to adult content, pose a serious threat to online privacy. While initially targeting pornography sites, these laws are expanding to encompass broader online activities, such as accessing skincare products, potentially requiring users to upload government IDs to third-party verification services. This creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, government surveillance, and misuse by private companies, effectively turning age verification into a backdoor for widespread online monitoring. The EFF argues that these laws are overbroad, ineffective at their stated goals, and disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
HN commenters express concerns about the slippery slope of age verification laws, starting with porn and potentially expanding to other online content and even everyday purchases. They argue that these laws normalize widespread surveillance and data collection, creating honeypots for hackers and potentially enabling government abuse. Several highlight the ineffectiveness of age gates, pointing to easy bypass methods and the likelihood of children accessing restricted content through other means. The chilling effect on free speech and the potential for discriminatory enforcement are also raised, with some commenters drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes. Some suggest focusing on better education and parental controls rather than restrictive legislation. The technical feasibility and privacy implications of various verification methods are debated, with skepticism towards relying on government IDs or private companies.
Summary of Comments ( 15 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377867
HN commenters discuss the effectiveness and future of Global Privacy Control (GPC). Some express skepticism about its impact, noting that many websites simply ignore it, while others believe it's a valuable tool, particularly when combined with legal pressure and browser enforcement. The potential for legal action based on ignoring GPC signals is debated, with some arguing that it provides strong grounds for enforcement, while others highlight the difficulty of proving damages. The lack of clear legal precedents is mentioned as a significant hurdle. Commenters also discuss the technicalities of GPC implementation, including the different ways websites can interpret and respond to the signal, and the potential for false positives. The broader question of how to balance privacy with personalized advertising is also raised.
The Hacker News post "Implications of Global Privacy Control" generated a moderate amount of discussion with a variety of viewpoints on the effectiveness and future of the GPC standard.
Several commenters expressed skepticism about GPC's real-world impact. Some doubted that websites, especially those outside of the EU, would respect the signal, pointing to the history of companies ignoring similar initiatives like Do Not Track. One commenter argued that the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism renders GPC largely symbolic. This sentiment was echoed by others who felt that GPC would be easily circumvented by websites requiring users to disable it in exchange for access. The complexity of online advertising and data collection was also highlighted, with some suggesting that GPC only addresses a small part of a much larger problem.
Conversely, some commenters were more optimistic about GPC's potential. They viewed it as a positive step towards giving users more control over their data and believed that even partial adoption by websites could have a significant impact. One user emphasized the value of GPC as a clear signal of user preference, arguing that it puts pressure on companies to comply, especially in jurisdictions with strong privacy regulations like California. The importance of user awareness and adoption of tools that enable GPC was also highlighted.
A few commenters discussed the technical aspects of GPC implementation and its interaction with existing privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA. One pointed out the need for clearer guidelines on how websites should interpret and respond to the GPC signal, while another noted the potential for conflict between GPC and legitimate data collection practices, such as those required for security purposes.
Some comments also touched upon the broader implications of GPC for the online advertising ecosystem. One commenter speculated that widespread adoption of GPC could lead to a shift towards alternative advertising models, such as contextual advertising. Another raised concerns about the potential for further consolidation of power among large tech companies who are better equipped to navigate the complexities of privacy regulations.
Finally, a few commenters shared their personal experiences with using GPC and offered practical tips on how to enable it in different browsers.
Overall, the comments reflect a nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by GPC. While skepticism about its effectiveness is prevalent, there is also a sense of hope that GPC can contribute to a more privacy-respecting online environment.