81–90 of 457 posts
Or the sites that don't bother with compliance and just show a message to the effect of 'this site operates under a jurisdiction that may have different privacy laws to your country' and leaves it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they just need to crack down much harder on websites and hand out big fines for dark patterns until the websites switch to sane defaults. It's just a question of how much the companies in question believe that the EU is going to come after them. Once the cost calculus shifts to being on the safe side it'd quickly turn into a norm, but it requires showing some teeth.
It's already happening, but slowly, slowly. The various agencies need time to get their act together, and have started with the most egregious excesses. It seems rather unlikely at this point that consent forms that apply inappropriate pressure - explicitly called out in the GDPR as invalid - will somehow escape enforcement. I'd expect invalid cookie banners to be on the chopping block sometime fairly soon. Additiona…
GDPR opt-in questions train people to accept forms without reading or thinking. I think this will be dangerous. And I'm really irritated that I can't access local news sites in America because they aren't compliant -- so they blanket ban European access. That's deeply problematic.
The usual answer I get when I complain about this is either "It doesn't happen to me" or "They wanted to steal your data. You're better off without being able to use their site."
I've yet to be convinced by either argument as a European. It's almost like a knee-jerk reaction by some Europeans that if Americans do something we don't like then they're automatically in the wrong.
I must say I'm really surprised. I'm a frontend developer and probably more keen to keep an eye on this stuff but there are lots of times where I just say yes because the popup is in-my-face and I just want to scroll to the content. I guess where the article falls flat is where the author says a "proper GDPR content banner" was implemented. No online publication will do this. At least they will trick you with button…
> but there are lots of times where I just say yes because the popup is in-my-face and I just want to scroll to the content. I am exactly the same. I use UBlock Origin and Privacy Badger so pretty much nothing gets through anyway but just to get rid of the banner, I click on OK. However, that being said, I only do it if the other choice is "Manage Preferences" or something equally vague: If I am given a clear yes-or-…
I see no reason to turn off Performance and Functional in most cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, if someone can show that they were tricked into giving consent when they were not willing to, then you're still in violation of GDPR. So those convoluted forms might not give those companies the legal protection they they hope for. And yes, I'd assume the "phony consent" rate to be much higher, because in some cases I also cannot find the no button and/or accidentally tap on the huge yes button on my phone…
How do you prove you were tricked into giving consent to tracking?
The author's consent form is very simple and isn't using any shady UX tricks to get the user to consent. One action will opt you in, one action will opt you out. I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookie…
We should have GDPR settings in the browser.
Oh, there's nothing like that in the so-called "HTML standard"? Maybe, just maybe, Google being the standard body might have something to do with it, when Apple have been blocking third-party cookies for years now [1], and is in the progress of banning browser APIs that can be used for fingerprinting.
Best of all, this might rollback all those HTML5 APIs that have no business being shipped with browsers, and bring back the web content we want.
[1]: https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. I hoped that he would repeat the experiment with a tricky one, like the horrendous forms served by Quantcast. In those, if you click "Reject all" nothing happens! How is that even allowed boggles my mind.
That's the website fault. The Quantcast form is highly configurable, you can choose to display a "I do not accept" button on the first screen
Unless they do browser fingerprinting, the number will be overinflated by all the people like me who clear their cookies regularly, if not on every browser session, and are therefore re-asked consent on every single visit.
I'd imagine the people who do that to be a very small percentage.