I'm actively working on a cookie banner blocker for iOS. Feedback, questions and suggestions appreciated!
Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
351–360 of 457 posts
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
A dark pattern from Oracle? That's unexpected. That's why people are abandoning Java, by the way. But yes, isn't there on the GDPR that tracking must be opt-in? I don't see how the pop-up is legal, and making the opt-out inaccessible is probably a large violation.
The standard popups are 100% against the GDPR. In the GDPR, all consent must be explicit, uncoerced, and opt-in. If I recall correctly, there can be a request displayed to the user, but the "No tracking" option must be the default, and must not require any more user interaction than the "Yes tracking" option. If there is a "Yes tracking" button that immediately closes the banner and continues, then even having a "are…
Can you cite the part of the regulation that requires “no tracking” must not require any more user interaction than the "Yes tracking" option.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#353Earlier 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.
I think the heart of the matter is "not necessary for the performance of that contract".
Privacy advocates argue that it's not necessary to track people to perform the purpose of a site (like, displaying news items).
Publishers argue that it's necessary to track and display ads in order for the business to be sustainable, without which they cannot continue serving news (+ ads).
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the courts have to say about this.
Maybe publishers have will have to show how much their revenue suffers if they stop tracking.
Another consideration is the demand for "privacy by design and default" (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/). It might be hard to argue that business built on tracking users fulfills the criteria for that.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is possible to show content based ads rather than ads based on your tracking. It is perfectly reasonable for a website about motorcycles to show ads for motorcycle products, and this could be done without tracking the user. I don't want that one piece of furniture I (or my SO using my computer) looked at on Wayfair to follow me to the motorcycle website. I definitely don't need an ad empire following all of my act…
Sure but that doesn't work for everything, should Rockstar Games pay 100x what it currently pays for advertisement for advertising GTA DLCs or whatever to people who don't care about gaming? Should perhaps websites like YouTube not exist because people don't want to pay for stuff and the business is not sustainable via non-targeted advertisements (if that's the case)?
Yes it does work for everything- a website can label its content with keywords and advertisers can choose to advertise on sites with specific types of content. So IGN signs up for an ad network and says that their content is about "video games." Then Rockstar says to the ad network, "run my ads on sites about video games." A person reading IGN is clearly interested in video games and we don't have to do any tracking to figure that out. They could even go so far as to show Playstation ads on articles about Playstation games and Xbox ads on articles about Xbox games. The ad can be targeted by the content a person is looking at, not where they've been in the past. If anything, a video game ad on a video game website is more effective than showing me a cosmetics ad on a video game website.
So companies can still have effective ads on relevant sites, ad networks can still facilitate the in-between, and users don't have to be tracked. Advertisers already use Google AdWords to show ads to people searching for specific keywords, this is just an extension to show ads to websites with specific keywords. Websites are already working with keywords for SEO, it's not even extra work for them.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#355I’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
Yes you can implement it yourself – given how bad available cookie consent tools are, you're more likely to be compliant that way.
However, consent under the GDPR must be specific. That means the user should be able to consent to or withhold consent for individual processing purposes. Analytics would be one purpose, personalized ads another.
Note that under EU cookie laws you don't need consent for cookies that are strictly necessary for the service requested by the user. E.g. using a cookie for dark mode preference, for a shopping cart, or for the consent status itself is perfectly fine without consent.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When you give someone money to do a thing you have responsibility about that thing. If someone is running a clearly illegal business (trafficing illegal drugs, humans) and you are aware of this and invest in their business then you become an accessory you are not immune to liability for crimes you were aware of before investing - you are immune to liability for actions taken without your knowledge (which is what we assume the great deal of actions taken by investees are).
Causing another massive shock to the stock market is the correct response here because nearly everyone is engaged in behavior that harms society and should be stopped. Also, the market will recover and really isn't that important. If a small proportion of actors were engaged in this activity then getting an industry compact or other token gesture might be good enough to correct it.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people were affected by the things they give companies money to do, perhaps they'd be a lot more careful about what they give companies money to do.
To the point where it's not worth giving companies money at all. Stockholders aren't involved in day-to-day ops, anyway, so you're placing the blame at the wrong place. It should be placed on the C-suite.
The problem with modern capitalism is that people can get all the benefits but avoid the bulk of the risk
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That may be, but a threat of jail hanging over a director or CEO may make them take the correct course of action - effectively becoming the deterrent.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#359How can we report websites who use the blatant dark patterns? I’m sure they must be violating GDPR.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#360I’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
A "I do not consent to any of this" option that you actually respect is perfectly compliant. All of these granular options are to "provide full control to allow users to customise the partners that they trust" (read: extra complexity to put off users exercising their right to not be tracked, plus the marginal improvement to telemetry from the 1% of users that will allow google analytics but not ad tracking).
That said, you do need to inform users of who specifically they're sending the data to (and what they're going to do with it) in the consent option. So "Yes, track me with all your unspecified partners" doesn't quite cut it for the yes option.