-
Permalink
On twitter.com
❤️ 10 Favorites
Mood 0
-
While I understand the pressures that are no doubt in play to release GPP, it's extremely frustrating to see this 'finalized': - this late in 2022 - w/promise of even more complexity in the string & t/f greater fingerprinting threat - positioned specifically to replace uspapiPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
Also, very frustrating to see GPP released without any finalized accountability mechanisms.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
USPAPI, for its simplicity and transparency, is really what a consent signal should look like. To move away from it towards greater complexity is a mistake.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood +6 🙂
-
Also, frustrating to see this released with no proposed specifications around Virginia law when that law comes into effect January 1st.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
This is the end, I guess, of any chance that my hoped for outcome would arrive, which is USPAPI would become the standard for compliance across the entire US.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
Considering lawmakers have been attempting to have rights like Do Not Sell be overlapping with other states' definitions, specifying them as different sections and implying them to be meaningfully different rights in GPP, a new development since the RFC, is a HUGE disappointment.On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +1 🙂
-
That said, the fact that doing this creates an *incredibly high* fingerprinting risk unnecessarily isn't just disappointing but actively invalidating of GPP and should be of immediate concern to regulators.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁