When you're made aware of the tracking, why would anyone willingly choose it? It's a sad state of the internet when you're doing 90% of your Google searches in an incognito window.
Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
391–400 of 457 posts
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It won't. Again, this is well studied. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...
Your source doesn't actually apply well here. It talks about things like substance abuse and addiction being reasons that criminals don't act rationally to punishment as a deterrent. For white collar crime, there's a very different set of circumstances in play. Crime is often just a business decision based on risk and reward. Raise the risk and the reward becomes less worth going for.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Everyone here seems to be unaware of article 7, section 3:
>The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.
Emphasis added.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#394What 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…
OneTrust, Evidon, and the rest of the "privacy management" services...why can't I just click once at their site that I don't want any cookies from any of the companies that use them?
I just went through a thing with Evidon where each of their opt outs is a JS-required redirect, and when you get to a company like Adobe, you have to click on a million things with a million disappointments.
It's intentional, and fuck you if you don't like it. Sorry, more like FUCK YOU if you don't like it.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#395What 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…
This is like reCAPTCHA all over again.
Sure, we don't block accessing our site from a proxy, we just make you select the traffic lights forever. Is a crosswalk light a traffic light? Sometimes. Does it count if only the edge is in the picture? What if it's almost completely out of shot? Let's also slow down the loading of the images to a crawl for no reason and sometimes even if you manage to wait for all of them to show up and select them all correctly 20 times in a row we just say you fail anyway and send you back to the beginning.
There's no point in creating the line if you make the line endless. I'm not surprised Oracle of all places is doing what you've described, either.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#396In my opinion, GDPR, if properly enforced, is going to be a disaster for many users.
Not everyone can pay for the content they consume. Some people are poor, under 18, live in a country where Visa/Mastercard isn't widely supported or can't pay for some other reason. Internet has made the lives of those people much, much better. They definitely prefer being tracked over having to pay for Facebook, Snapchat, Youtube and all the other sites they use. GDPR forces providers to provide their services to customers who opt out of tracking, and most of them will. That means switching to a payment-only model is going to become the only viable option, hurting a large part of the population.
The "just force them to pay" attitude that I often see here is extremely elitist. For someone making six figures, being tracked matters. For someone barely scraping by or without a credit card, that's an acceptable price to pay for all the goodies they get.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#397I usually reopen the site in private / incognito and "agree all". I don't trust these sites to abide by the modal agreement anyway.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite the part of the regulation that requires “no tracking” must not require any more user interaction than the "Yes tracking" option.
Everyone here seems to be unaware of article 7, section 3: >The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. Emphasis added. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gd…
Also relevant bits from recital 32 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/
> Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent.
> If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#399The 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…
> 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 cookies. I wonder what's the best of shaming/reporting these examples and if an effective way exists[1]. If you have any ideas, sources, anything—please share. GDPR c…
Consent should be a api, that is auto negotiated against your preferences.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#400Earlier 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.
> Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.
It doesn't need to be harsh, 3 days in jail with a review in six months to see if they've fixed it. Then an additional 3 days in jail. Pretty much any jail time would be adequate for typical C-Level execs. Also, not "Raped in the ass" prison time, just a mellow 3 days to contemplate their shiftiness locked in a comfortable room.