Comment by chemotaxis
3 months ago
> Companies were at least forced to separate what were essential cookies from non-essential ones.
The question here isn't if it cost companies money. It did. It's whether it was a good law. It wasn't, because compliance generated no benefit to anyone.
You seem to be saying that it was a good law because it could have been a good law if written differently.
>because compliance generated no benefit to anyone.
if you don't value privacy over an extra click or two, then I can see why you'd think that. But if that's the case we wouldn't also be so adamant against mass surveillance. Which is it?
Was any privacy actually gained?