I signed up for a new account on a fitness website yesterday. They track health and food and diet you enter. anyway, during the sign up they had a opt out, I chose to do just that, however the opt out process then took over the screen with a modal window, which gave a loading bar and took about thirty seconds to complete... But guess what... There was a big CANCEL button. I couldn't perform any action during sign up…
I use "LoseIt" since MFP went overboard with having features and not a single UI/UX review.
Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
361–370 of 457 posts
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#362And once set, the browser should pass the user decisions to the website, and enforce those that can be enforced locally (at the browser level).
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#363What 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…
I know exactly which prompt you’re talking about, it’s very common around the web. Unfortunately, the only solution I found that fixes it is disabling ad and tracker blockers. They seem to break that prompt, though if you set them to be very aggressive, the prompt disappears altogether.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#364This law (and the California one) should be amended so that it takes the same number of clicks to opt in as to opt out, and so that ignoring the banner is an opt out.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#365Earlier 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…
Since your edit seems to be taking the jail suggestion seriously: I think the data-money analogy isn't unreasonable, but you're overloading "swindle" pretty heavily here, in a way that defeats your point. Companies and people "swindle" others out of money all the time with dark patterns, and this predates computing by ten thousand years. Caveat emptor exists for a reason: the legal system is just too inflexible a too…
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#366The interesting thing about GDPR is it officially bans "opt out" tracking cookies - you need someone's consent, although lots of sites interpret that in a way which ... let's just say if they applied the same standards of consent to their private lives they'd very quickly find themselves at the center of the next #MeToo campaign.
GDPR does allow you to make the "Yes" and "No" buttons the same size, so "equal choice" rather than "opt in" - maybe that gets you better conversion rates?
[1] http://www.behaviouraldesign.com/2015/08/11/why-99-of-austri...
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#367Earlier 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.
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.
- consent requires, among other things, that permission be given freely;[1]
- so, if coercion is involved then consent does not exist;[2]
- and, preventing user access to content unless that user agrees to be tracked is likely considered to be coercive.
Therefore if a user grants permission to be tracked only in order to gain access to that site's content, that granted permission would not be considered consensual because that permission was not given freely.
(the above is not legal advice but I do have a law degree; I also work for a NGO that produces apps that teach people about consent)
----- [1]GDPR Article 4(11) [2]GDPR Recital 42
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#368What 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…
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#369Surprised 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.
That's potentially but not necessarily compliant. To a large degree, it depends on the intent of the website's data controller.
* GDPR Art 3(2) discusses the territorial scope of data controllers that are not in the EU. Their data processing falls under the GDPR if they are offering services to people in the EU.
* GDPR Recital 23 discusses potential factors that indicate an offer. Blocking EU visitors is not necessary: “Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.”
* The EDPB has issued further guidance on the territorial scope. In their guidelines 3/2018 [1] the spend a lot of ink on discussing this “targeting criterion”, and provide some clear-cut examples. Of course, that falls short of actually interesting examples of edge cases :)
[1]: https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/riktlinj...
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#370Earlier 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…