Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

ByteJockey wrote: post #153

alkonaut wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needing ad revenue and needing to track visitors are different things. Structurally obviously we are now in a situation where “well targeted ads” can generate some revenue, and “well behaved ads” barely can. The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.

> The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal. The other option is that everything ad supported goes out of business because the ROI on dumb ads is negative. I don't want to sound like I know this for a fact, but I'd just like to point out that the future doesn't "have" to be anything. There are always multiple options.

We have a past where dumb ads used to work reasonably well, and could sustain a huge diversity of publications of all sizes.

There may be some reason why this can't work again, but all of the reasons I can come up with point to a higher ROI for those ads, not lower.

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

#272

Post by Fradow » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

ohmaigad wrote: post #262

Fradow wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to quote Article 7.4. of the GPDR here: "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract." Preventing you from seeing the page you request if you do not consent seems…

I have read this and (IANAL) view this as a definition for what is "freely given consent". If you force users to give consent in order to use service, it isn't freely given consent. It doesn't say that you must provide the service.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps someday a judge will rule on this, but I'm not aware of any case on this particular point yet.

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

#273

Post by dmitriid » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

osullip wrote: post #177

shmageggy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon/Yahoo/Techcrunch is such a blatant offender, and especially noticable because they get posted here often. Their modal is a giant obfuscation dark-pattern, and far as I can tell, there is no way to opt out.

This is what yahoo were doing in 2018 (it's my twitter) https://twitter.com/pos43/status/999606375217967104 I found a very convoluted way of opting out: https://twitter.com/pos43/status/1001331147110957056 It is now 2020 and I would be interested to see if these methods have been changed to make them easier or harder.

OAth is still the same

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

#274

Post by oarsinsync » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

ginko wrote: post #264

oarsinsync wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 So who's liable in this scenario? Someone in the C suite? The coder monkey who implemented it? Someone in between? All of the above? Unless I'm mis-remembering, the maximum fine under GDPR is a % of the total revenue of the company, so depending on the size of the company, this could result in…

I'd say the stock owners.

If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years.

Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?

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

#275

Post by EamonnMR » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

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.

I wonder if justice has improved over time because we've gotten better at tolerating things that make us angry, or because we've gotten better at not getting angry.

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

#276

Post by 12bits » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:14 PM UTC

If I need to figure out what they’re actually asking I’m out. This article makes it clear the majority of these consent boxes are not really compliant. On a side note if someone says they’re in advertising I automatically hate them, this terrible I know, but they’re usually pompous assholes and that’s how I feel of that industry as a whole.

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

#277

Post by c3534l » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

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.

I'm guessing its more about knowingly and intentionally breaking the law bit, then that he was angry they were breaking the law.

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

#278

Post by germinalphrase » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

So we have an entire industry built upon a coercion? Gonna be a long fight.

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

#279

Post by heeen2 » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

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…

Someone should write the next level of counter measures that just sends a bespoke cookie that contains the do not track info based on patterns similar to ad block - without ever having visited the site beforehand. Or if that's not working for some sites pretend you accept tracking but just forge the tracking ids with random data every visit

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

#280

Post by jariel » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #210

jariel wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Unpaid home hobbyist writers' don't have more credibility than newsrooms, with budgets, copy editors, massive networks of sources, researchers, professional staff support - which costs money.

I thought the 00s proved that embarassingly that they did, as five minutes of fact checking with a search engine proved they had gotten Middle School level facts deeply wrong.

This is a little bit sarcasm, fine but there news is professional business.

Random bloggers generally don't have credibility, they can in some instances check facts and even break big stories and so so in a very credible way, however, there's little incentive and they have no power, because they don't make money and mostly don't have an audience. More importantly, nobody cares about them. If they want to speak to 'The Minister of Defence' about an important event, the Minister will not respond. When the BBC/CBC/CNN needs that interview, the Minister will likely, if there's something on the agenda.

Because they don't have credibility, sources won't trust them which is the most major source of difficult-to-get-at information.

Wikileaks and other teams had to build credibility.

And of course the fact that news rooms cover a massive array of subjects.

Resigning the entirety of news to 'some checks on Google' is glib.