On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:57:39 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>When I attempt a WhoIs lookup on eldiario.es, I'm told that domain is
>not registered. Yet I can do a "nslookup eldiario.es" (but that domain
>is listed as an alias to aec01.usg.edgetcdn.io).

Using 8.8.8.8 as the lookup server, when I do a dig or nslookup on eldiario.es
it resolves to a single IP address: 176.34.179.218

I don't see any aliases from here. It's interesting that you do.

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> When I attempt a WhoIs lookup on eldiario.es, I'm told that domain is
>> not registered. Yet I can do a "nslookup eldiario.es" (but that
>> domain is listed as an alias to aec01.usg.edgetcdn.io).
>
> Using 8.8.8.8 as the lookup server, when I do a dig or nslookup on
> eldiario.es it resolves to a single IP address: 176.34.179.218
>
> I don't see any aliases from here. It's interesting that you do.

While I also have Google (8.8.8.8) as a DNS server, it is not the
primary one which is Cloudflare (1.1.1.1). I add both the IPv4 and IPv6
addresses for each DNS server. Depends if you do an nslookup on just
the domain, or with a hostname (www).

Just the domain:
c:\>nslookup eldiario.es
Server: one.one.one.one
Address: 2606:4700:4700::1111

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: eldiario.es
Address: 176.34.179.218

Domain with hostname (www):
c:\>nslookup www.eldiario.es
Server: one.one.one.one
Address: 2606:4700:4700::1111

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: aec01.usg.edgetcdn.io
Addresses: 2604:2dc0:100:276b::
2a02:6ea0:cc2c:1::4
2a02:6ea0:d70f::5
2604:2dc0:200:f49::
2a02:6ea0:c806:1::4
51.81.243.73
138.199.8.193
212.102.45.226
51.81.66.107
143.244.35.226
Aliases: www.eldiario.es
www.eldiario.es.cdn.bitban.net
caching.c19.edge2befaster.io

If the site is web hosted, could be they use the domain or hostname to
connect to one of the web hosted sites at the web hosting service.

On 2024-01-19 02:57, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Cookie law has changed in Spain about two weeks ago and many sites
>> changed their systems to this new one. Pay to remove cookies.
>
> I take it Spain, or wherever the site is hosted, does not have to comply
> with the European GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) or the EPR
> (ePrivacy Regulation aka "Cookie Directive").
>
> https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
> "What these two lines are stating is that cookies, insofar as they are
> used to identify users, qualify as personal data and are therefore
> subject to the GDPR."
>
> Spain is a member of the EU, so they are under the jurisdiction of GPDR.
> If the site claims otherwise, they are violating the law, but maybe the
> site is not located in Spain.
>
> https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
> "Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use
> of certain cookies"
>
> For me, if there was no way to circument those assholes at their site,
> I'd go elsewhere. Rarely is there content at a site that cannot be
> found elsewhere.
>
> When I attempt a WhoIs lookup on eldiario.es, I'm told that domain is
> not registered. Yet I can do a "nslookup eldiario.es" (but that domain
> is listed as an alias to aec01.usg.edgetcdn.io). A WhoIs on edgetcdn.io
> says they're located in Madrid; however, "cdn" implies Content Delivery
> Network. Those are used by sites to host resources for a web site. For
> example, Microsoft likes to use Akamai.
>
> The site is in Madrid. Spain is an EU member, so must comply with GDPR.
> That means they MUST provide their service whether you allow their
> cookies, or not.

The law has changed this January.

I posted that site as an example, but this new policy is applied by
about all news Spanish sites since the same day in January.

>
> What is this law in Spain that now defies the GDPR and ePR?
>
> https://www.privacyworld.blog/privacy-europe/
> Both the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive (as implemented at national
> level) apply to the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes all 27
> EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway.
>
> https://blog.didomi.io/en/all-you-need-to-know-about-cookie-consent-law-in-spain
> https://cookieinformation.com/regulations/cookie-guidelines/spanish-cookie-rules/
>
> Nothing is mentioned about allowing financial or content restrictions
> when the visitor refuses cookies.

It is a new law, and it follows EU directives on that direction.

<https://old.meneame.net/story/no-quieres-cookies-tendras-pagar-este-internet-nos-espera-partir>

+++..........
If you don't want cookies you will have to pay. This is the Internet
that awaits us from this January onwards.

OniNoNeko_Levossian by OniNoNeko_Levossian to elblogsalmon.com sent:
27/12/2023 11:28

January 11, 2024 is the deadline set for companies to implement the new
update dictated by the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) regarding
the use of cookies. This is the second update of its guide in the last
three years, which denotes the great changes that online advertising is
undergoing in the era of digitization.

| tags: cookies , internet , payment

#9 Kotsumi 27/12/2023 11:36
Absolutely made up headline. The AEPD guide says nothing of the sort,
what it says is:
There may be certain cases in which the non-acceptance of the use of
cookies prevents access to the website or the total or partial use of
the service, provided that the user is properly informed about it and an
alternative, not necessarily free, access to the service without
accepting the use of cookies is offered.
...........++-

It is the Spanish regulation catching up with some new guidelines from
the EDPB, published in Feb 2023. Something about paywalls and proper
design of cookie banners.

<https://www.elblogsalmon.com/economia/no-quieres-cookies-tendras-que-pagar-este-internet-que-nos-espera-a-partir-este-enero>

<https://www.meneame.net/story/biwenger-introduce-pago-obligatorio-rechazar-cookies-terceros>

<>

>
> https://cookieinformation.com/regulations/cookie-guidelines/spanish-cookie-rules/
> Regarding “cookie walls”, website owners still need to offer an
> alternative for access to the service and functionalities without the
> need for the user to accept cookies, but the new guide clarifies that
> this alternative does not have to be free.

Yes, the alternative exists, but the sites are permitted now to charge
for it. And they do.

>
> Ah, mention of punitive response by a site if you refuse their cookies.
> So, accept their cookies, but delete on exit from Firefox. If they
> write 3rd-party cookies, those will still be isolated to that domain
> with Firefox's Total Cookie Protection. If you want to eliminate the
> cookie banner on revisit, add an cookie exception for that domain.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

I suppose those that use a cookie pay wall might be doing so for
survival. They rely on ad revenue to continue supporting the site that
we users normally get to see for free. They also have their own
resources (e.g., manpower, server hosting) that costs them money. They
don't exist for altruistic distribution of news. TCP should prevent
tracking via cookies, but still lets them use cookies for their own use.
When you visit a site, the isolated cookie jar prevents the next site
from seeing cookies a prior site wrote for the next site.

It isn't just cookies. Any web site can see if you are blocking any of
their resources. You connect there, but you don't retrieve some
resources, like ads. They are blocked. Some sites will warn that you
need to disable adblocking. Some will still let you see everything.
Some will throttle their content when you block some of it. They need
to survive, and advertising provides them revenue that we freeloaders
aren't giving them.

Your choice. Visit there and accept their conditions, or go somewhere
else and accept their conditions. Their web site, their property, their
choices. Us old farts are accustomed to how free was the Web. We
started using adblockers to get rid of unwanted content (to us). Well,
the sites aren't your parents doling out money to you. They're a
business, so they need money to survive. With TCP, I don't see a
problem saying Yes to accept their conditions. I think us old farts
have been too entitled on how it used to be.

On 2024-01-19 17:25, VanguardLH wrote:
> I suppose those that use a cookie pay wall might be doing so for
> survival. They rely on ad revenue to continue supporting the site that
> we users normally get to see for free. They also have their own
> resources (e.g., manpower, server hosting) that costs them money. They
> don't exist for altruistic distribution of news. TCP should prevent
> tracking via cookies, but still lets them use cookies for their own use.
> When you visit a site, the isolated cookie jar prevents the next site
> from seeing cookies a prior site wrote for the next site.
>
> It isn't just cookies. Any web site can see if you are blocking any of
> their resources. You connect there, but you don't retrieve some
> resources, like ads. They are blocked. Some sites will warn that you
> need to disable adblocking. Some will still let you see everything.
> Some will throttle their content when you block some of it. They need
> to survive, and advertising provides them revenue that we freeloaders
> aren't giving them.
>
> Your choice. Visit there and accept their conditions, or go somewhere
> else and accept their conditions. Their web site, their property, their
> choices. Us old farts are accustomed to how free was the Web. We
> started using adblockers to get rid of unwanted content (to us). Well,
> the sites aren't your parents doling out money to you. They're a
> business, so they need money to survive. With TCP, I don't see a
> problem saying Yes to accept their conditions. I think us old farts
> have been too entitled on how it used to be.

I don't object to adverts.

I object to nuisance adverts that overload the CPU, or me myself. I also
object to tracking. To them finding out exactly who I am.

Ie, same adverts as we had on the paper edition.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.