Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

markosaric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 457 posts

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#221

Post by [deleted] »

beshrkayali wrote: post #213
blauditore wrote: post #206

What really drives me crazy are prompts that start by showing two options: "Consent to all cookies", or "customize". If you click "customize", it opens a new modal window with a loading indicator that just doesn't seem to finish. I literally waited 60 seconds and then tried again by refreshing the page, ending up with another infinite loading indicator. This means that users are de-factor forced to click "consent to…

DockerHub uses a company/product called "TrustArc: TRUSTe" and they have _exactly_ this method. The slowdown is intentional. People who come up with sort of tactics and those who implement them should go to jail. It's beyond infuriating. I've decided to not upload my images to dockerhub because of this. Edit: jail time is not for anger obviously, but for intentionally swindling people. It'll be handled on a case by c…

[deleted]

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#222

Post by fnord123 »

davidweatherall wrote: post #2

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…

Reddit doesn't have a consent form.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#223

Post by Sodman »

bad_user wrote: post #145
gear54rus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to remind you and everyone else about Firefox reader mode. Solves like 99% of this user-enslaving shit.

Screw that, I just close the page. If a publication disrespects their readers like that, then the content is trash anyway.

Outside of HN, most content creators, especially professionally, don't have the option to make significant changes to the platform on which their content is published. I agree that an entire publication's site can be trash, but good writers can still write on bad platforms.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#224

Post by fabiospampinato »

I hate ads as much as everybody else, and this reads to me like "given the choice only 9% of people would pay for their meal", should we forbid charging for food then? Probably not.

As sad as the current ads-powered internet is becoming I haven't seen any promising viable alternative, and sure non-tracking-based ads is not the same thing as having no ads, but it significantly moves the needle in that same direction in terms on revenue.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#225

Post by elliekelly »

tzs wrote: post #183
Fradow wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those very much falls in the shady part. The first option, redirect, is not GDPR-compliant, because then the "consent" cannot be considered freely given, and thus is not valid The second option is really borderline, and could work out for a US-only news website, for example (arguing it doesn't cater to European residents), but would be non-compliant for a business which knowingly serve European residents.

> The first option, redirect, is not GDPR-compliant, because then the "consent" cannot be considered freely given, and thus is not valid. I don't quite understand the reasoning on that one. In Europe, and pretty much everywhere else, there are a bazillion interactions every day in the form of one party offering to provide some good or service only if the other party agrees to something. For example, the grocery store…

Under GDPR consent can’t be “freely given” when it’s bundled as a condition of service unless the consent they’re asking for is necessary in order to perform the service. To use your example:

The grocery store doesn’t need to ask if you consent to paying for an apple because if you didn’t consent there wouldn’t be any transaction to perform.

Now if you paid for your apple and the cashier said okay hand over your phone so I can poke around a bit because there’s some fine print that says by nature of walking through the front doors you agree to allow the store to look through your phone. Did you consent to that? Of course not.

Consent wasn’t “freely given” because the store is requiring you disclose information (the contents of your phone) as a condition of service (you can’t even walk through the door without “consenting” let alone make a purchase) and that information isn’t necessary in order for the store to complete the transaction.

GDPR says they have to ask you first (usually in the form of a giant irritating banner as soon as you walk in the door) and that if you say no they have to let you buy your apple anyway.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#226

Post by this_was_posted »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #220
beshrkayali wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DockerHub uses a company/product called "TrustArc: TRUSTe" and they have _exactly_ this method. The slowdown is intentional. People who come up with sort of tactics and those who implement them should go to jail. It's beyond infuriating. I've decided to not upload my images to dockerhub because of this. Edit: jail time is not for anger obviously, but for intentionally swindling people. It'll be handled on a case by c…

Causing you to get angry is all it takes to warrant justification for jail time in your eyes? I am thankful you aren't in charge of any lawmaking.

Jail might be a bit much, but giving them the maximum fine allowed under the GDPR seems quite reasonable to me. I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt, as this is clearly malpractice.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#227

Post by mszcz »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #220
beshrkayali wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DockerHub uses a company/product called "TrustArc: TRUSTe" and they have _exactly_ this method. The slowdown is intentional. People who come up with sort of tactics and those who implement them should go to jail. It's beyond infuriating. I've decided to not upload my images to dockerhub because of this. Edit: jail time is not for anger obviously, but for intentionally swindling people. It'll be handled on a case by c…

Causing you to get angry is all it takes to warrant justification for jail time in your eyes? I am thankful you aren't in charge of any lawmaking.

This should be punishible by law, jailtime included. The intent of the law is to give the consumer a choice. What these companies are doing are trying to circumvent the law by making it extremely difficult and annoying to exercise that choice.

Very similar to trying to cancel a spammy subscription (but that's not mandated by law, so)

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#228

Post by wrkronmiller »

gear54rus wrote: post #204
sleavey wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't work on Yahoo sites which redirect to a different URL for the consent.

Then give it.... in an incognito tab haha.

Incognito basically just means "doesn't show up in my history". There are many, many, ways to track users without needing cookies.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#229

Post by ohmaigad »

Fradow wrote: post #138
Paianni wrote: post #81

Surprised no one has mentioned the systems that, if opted out of, redirect users to a 'privacy policy' page and won't allow access to content without opting in. 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.

Those very much falls in the shady part. The first option, redirect, is not GDPR-compliant, because then the "consent" cannot be considered freely given, and thus is not valid The second option is really borderline, and could work out for a US-only news website, for example (arguing it doesn't cater to European residents), but would be non-compliant for a business which knowingly serve European residents.

I don't see how the first option is not GDPR-compliant. If the privacy policy page doesn't process personal data there is no consent needed.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#230

Post by Vinnl »

phito wrote: post #101
bambax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone consent to be tracked if given a real choice? What are the benefits? The 9% look like an error.

I know people who just automatically click yes. I don't think they ever even cared to read what is says. They just have the habit to click yes to every prompt to "make sure it works"

I wonder what percentage would remain if the no-consent button was the primary button (filled button, saturated colour, bold font, etc.) and the consent button the secondary (outlined or transparent background without a border, regular font, etc.). I can't imagine it going much above 0, and I'd even guess that the ones who do consent intended not to consent but are expecting it to be the de-emphasised button.
Post reply on HN