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

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

#341

Post by perlgeek » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

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…

Basically, GDPR forbids bartering of PII/tracking information with goods and services.

Why? Presumably because most users don't see the real cost of giving away their personal data (either they never recognize the cost, or see it too late).

To make sure this is held up, the GDPR uses some tools; one is that consent is freely given, the other is ban on tie-in sales: you cannot demand PII from users that isn't necessary for the service you provide.

If you provide news or stories as a service, you cannot demand location data from your users, because you can provide the service without that.

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

#342

Post by ViViDboarder » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #331

dimitrios1 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly even hurt the terrible people making these decisions. When someone commits a wrong, the punishment is in part based on the amount of harm. You might feel that adtech causes small harms, if you look at harm against an individual, but adtech folks harm billions…

Exactly. Facebook and Google have been fined in the past and it’s never amounted to anything for them. When they make more Money from engaging in bad behavior than the fine costs, it’s a law they’d be stupid not to break.

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

#343

Post by jyriand » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

I’m wondering if i should implement the consent prompt myself or use some plugin? If i were to implement it myself is it enough to give two options Yes/No or does the law require me to give some additional customisation options?

Edit:typos

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

#344

Post by sjogress » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

sgustard wrote: post #335

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…

How do you remember the user has opted out of cookies without storing a cookie? Does anyone have an example of a site with a clear opt-in/out? I'm curious about what's actually stored on my machine in each case. And of course it's not really what's stored locally that's the issue: it's what is stored on their server.

Opting out of tracking is not the same as opting out of cookies. Per the GDPR a site is still allowed to set any cookies required for the site to work, including a "tracking consent cookie".

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

#345

Post by jillesvangurp » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

Of course they don't; and even if they do, their browser might still block the cookies or discard them frequently.

Tracking effectively is getting harder both technically and legally; and that's a good thing long term but leads to chaotic and desperate behavior short term.

Long term, there are three ways to adapt:

- drive users to apps instead of browsers. E.g. Google and Apple do this serve most of their news via apps where they control the ad experience, tracking, and user signin. There are no anonymous users there. GDPR still applies of course but practically speaking users only have the choice whether to use it or not. And none of the legales specific to browser based things like cookies apply. - tap into other sources of revenue (subscription based, sponsored, donations, etc). Ad revenues have in any case been declining for lots of news sites so this is something they need to do in any case. - switch to non personalized advertising that can still be lucrative if you have access to large amounts of users. E.g. most big brands still advertise this way and still lots of money floating around here. No cookies required.

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

#346

Post by ViViDboarder » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

Sodman wrote: post #223

bad_user wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do as much as engineers at Google or Facebook do to change their companies.

That is to say, each one cannot make much of an impact, but the responsible thing to do would be to not contribute or at least openly advocate for change from within. If enough people inside shift, then change can happen.

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

#347

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:07 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.

[deleted]

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

#348

Post by drstewart » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #331

dimitrios1 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly even hurt the terrible people making these decisions. When someone commits a wrong, the punishment is in part based on the amount of harm. You might feel that adtech causes small harms, if you look at harm against an individual, but adtech folks harm billions…

Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.

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

#349

Post by jl6 » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

theocs wrote: post #311

nicbou wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can't opt out in two clicks, I leave the website and click the next search result.

Or I just right click open it in private mode

No guarantee that they won’t track you through other fingerprinting methods.

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

#350

Post by rhn_mk1 » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167

Retric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance on older aircraft much like older cars drops because their worth less. Your lawsuit numbers are also wildly off. Ex: “The US aviation giant has settled the first in a series of lawsuits filed by families of 737 Max crash victims. Boeing will reportedly pay $1.2 million to 11 families of victims killed in the 2018 Lion Air crash.“ https://www.dw.com/en/boeing-settles-first-lawsuit-with-737-...

No they're not. That's what they're supposed to get. If courts don't actually give families that then the problem is in the court system, not the company.

It doesn't matter where the problem lies. The value courts assign to life informs the airline when they estimate how much they would lose due to a crash.