Timeline for Upcoming privacy updates: removal of the Activity data section and Google conversion pixel deprecation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2024 at 16:37 | comment | added | robjohn | How about an option not to sell or share my information? | |
| Feb 20, 2024 at 9:45 | comment | added | Florian F | Thank you. I found it in the meantime using a search for "Data Request". It seems to be at the bottom page under "Legal" after "About" and "Press" where nobody is looking anyway, then you need to choose "Submit Data Request" which doesn't look like it is "Submit request about your data". It is clearly not meant to be found. | |
| Feb 20, 2024 at 8:59 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @FlorianF I think you are looking for this page. I am currently trying to clarify what the intended use of the "Do not sell my information" option is. | |
| Feb 19, 2024 at 23:35 | comment | added | Florian F | Where is that data request page where I can request not to sell my activity? | |
| Feb 17, 2024 at 1:50 | comment | added | Mazura | Two birds with one stone. If I want to change this, now I'd have to un-U-Block the cookie box. If it's got the wrong language then it needs to change. But why make the easy button into a hoop to jump through? | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 19:56 | comment | added | ColleenV | @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Lawyers often prohibit things that will muddy the legal waters, like having a casual paraphrase of something that is stated explicitly in a policy. It doesn't mean they think they couldn't defend that statement in court or that my layperson's confusion about it is accurate. Warrant canaries are a completely different thing. By "Legal" I meant SE's legal department, not "legal" as in complies with the law. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 19:42 | comment | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | @ColleenV Sure, you may be under order to not speak about something, but you can't be ordered to lie about it. If they were indeed allowed to say it that way, they'd say so explicitly. That they didn't say anything means, therefore, that they did perceive it that way. See: Warrant canary for another example. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 14:29 | comment | added | ColleenV | They aren't going to say anything that implies that they were ever out of compliance with their policy. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. They aren't streamlining this for charity. They're doing it to make their lives easier because maintaining things in multiple places is a PIA. It's a good thing they gave us advance notice with some detail. I'm not going to nitpick their wording. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 14:25 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @ColleenV would have been fine with something like "In an effort to provide a uniform and compliant solution, as well as to update the user experience to the current policy, we will be removing the Activity data section from the profile preference page on February 26th, 2024.". Just something that acknowledge that the thing needed to be update without looking like they were doing this out of charity. Again, this is not "streamlining", this is just "updating" | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 14:19 | comment | added | ColleenV | They just missed some text on a user preferences page that was at one point true. I don't think they need to be beat up for fixing it. I actually am happy with how quickly they responded. I'd be happier if they weren't involved in creepy intrusive advertising, but that battle isn't going to be won until there's no money in it, or new laws are passed. Demanding that they open themselves up to litigation because feelings isn't productive. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 14:08 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @ColleenV nor does that mean they should get a free pass for it, at least not under the current messed up relationship with the community. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 13:51 | comment | added | ColleenV | You understand that they can't publicly admit certain things because it opens them to liability right? No competent legal department would allow a staff member to confirm in writing that they had misleading language around their privacy practices for years on the user preferences page. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 13:07 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @ColleenV Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not doing this because I wanted them to credit you. If the things are related as it seems I simply want them to recognize they had a problem and were sharing data despite claiming not to instead of trying to present this as an unrelated change done out of kindness to improve the user experience. It is a matter of transparency. It would be bad enough realizing that data was shared despite claiming it wasn't but trying to "hide" that issue behind some buzword would be worse. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 12:51 | comment | added | ColleenV | I don't doubt they were based on Sasha's comment. I don't need credit for that; I'd just like it fixed. If you ask Legal "is this OK" they'll definitely say "no" if it touches any part of an existing policy that was written by Legal. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 12:48 | history | edited | ꓢPArcheon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 235 characters in body
|
| Feb 16, 2024 at 12:44 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @ColleenV I am just trying to get some transparency since it looks like your posts were the trigger for this sudden "streamlining". | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 12:30 | comment | added | ColleenV | Pretty sure Legal doesn't approve of any language they didn't craft :) Of course the legal team would recommend shifting everything to the policy documents they've written. | |
| Feb 16, 2024 at 8:26 | history | answered | ꓢPArcheon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |