-
wow a company did the exact thing with tcf that every critic of tcf warned people that companies would do with tcf because of tcf's obvious surface level flaws Digiday/1586349651959205891Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 14 Retweets
❤️ 32 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
what an incredible surprisePermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0
-
so glad we're using basically the same exact system in the form of gpp to do future united states compliancePermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂
-
wow the attacker used vendor consents, an unnecessary & unnecessarily detailed system of consents recorded for individual ad tech vendors, that is the exact part of tcf every critic has identified as a huge fingerprinting risk confiant.com/privacy-hub/voldrakusPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood +5 🙂
-
wow and the attacker used the cmpId, a specific and entirely unnecessary piece of complexity that I identified specifically as a problematic piece of tcf translated to the gpp specPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂
-
what is this idea that i suggested in my gpp critique? it is amazing how relevant it seems to be right nowOn twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
Enjoy my now even more relevant critique of GPP which is mostly just TCF ported over with Even More data fields that can be used to fingerprint users aramzs.github.io/web-standards/2022/09/02/global-privacy-platform-review.htmlPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood 0
-
But if you want a shorter version: consent strings should be - Simple - Short - Without encryption - Human readable - With as few bits of data as possible ...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +3 🙂
-
It's truly wild to me that the IAB created a consent method that satisfies all these requirements (usprivacy) and has made the decision to--instead of using it as a model for the future--depreciate it and replace it with a more complex data heavy non-human-readable system.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂