I have seen worse. Der Speigel has "Accept" and redirection to sign up page for a paid subscription. I wan under the impression that forcing people to agree to tracking by withholding services until they do is not allowed under GDPR. Well, apparently it is. https://www.spiegel.de https://imgur.com/VWBmUzU
> I wan under the impression that forcing people to agree to tracking by withholding services until they do is not allowed under GDPR. You're 100% correct in your assumption. Der Spiegel is treading on thin ice here, or at least I hope they are. Here's the relevant GDPR text: Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent wit…
The Washington Post have the same thing. To view articles for free, they require you to sign away your GDPR rights, and they attempt to charge you 2x the money for a subscription without tracking.
Sucks to be them I guess, as I pay for news (and run Ublock) but won't reward this mendacious behaviour.
Unfortunately, it's compatible until the EU decides to hold people accountable for it.
Not even the EU as a whole, it's up to the individual regulators in each country. On a related note: Since most US companies base their EU subsidiaries in Ireland for tax purposes, it's actually just up to the Irish regulator. There are... concerns.
To be fair to the Irish regulator, the only reason that people have been able to delete Facebook accounts is because of their 2012 investigation.
They are somewhat under-staffed, but this is improving (did you know that they are also suing the Irish Government?)
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
There are sites (like wwe.com) where after you have successfully located the preference to opt out from everything it shows a "processing" screen which is stuck at 98% for about a minute. But accept is "processed" in an instant. Another dark pattern is showing you have opted out but some sites cannot receive opt out requests through https which is written in small fonts. By doing this they have successfully targeted…
Verizon was my, umm, favourite for all this shit.
Shows a popup, saying "we collect your data yadda yadda yadda". Then there were two buttons. One to agree to that. One to manage it. But clicking on the manage button just took a user to screens and screens of garbage information mainly listing the companies that used the information. Without any option to opt out (you could contact them to opt out, I assume individually). There was a button (if you drilled through the screens) which seemed to imply that it would link to a page that allowed opting out, but all it did was take you back to the first screen of the popup. Unreal. Somebody has thought about that; absolute cretins.
They've changed that so that now there is opt out toggles (which are obviously all split into groups and are all on by default and so on), I assume because of someone in legal tapping them on the shoulder?
I bought a NET10 international SIM card 7 years ago. Only used it for a couple weeks. Last month I asked them to delete my account. Spoke to 3 people and they weren't able to do it. One agent outright lied and said he did, but I was still able to log in after the fact. The best they managed was to change some of the profile details on the account (name, etc). I submitted a formal request under California's "Right to…
The GDPR has no teeth, beyond the thousands of people-years wasted through the legacy of the utterly ineffectual cookie consent modal.
Google and Facebook operate with impunity in Europe, as do even sketchier data brokers and ad networks.
The end result of the GDPR was end user annoyance, protectionism for EU companies and the protection of monopolies.
they can already. but as you can see, it's more often than not wrong information. There's so much scam the scammers scam themselves. Also, I couldn't care less, honestly. If I were a "Heavy home alcohol purchaser", perhaps I'd like to receive latest news related to that and promotions? I don't think privacy is the matter here at all. I think it's a problem with how we perceive our economy, which molds our entire life…
A prospective employer could buy the information about your alcohol use and decide not to hire you. An opponent in a lawsuit could use it to show you have a pattern of heavy alcohol use that caused you to be negligent. When you run for office in 10 years the other party will run attack ads against you using the information. Need I go on?
I can be reselling alcohol? I maybe run a dorm. Or a private club. Or I buy a lot of beer for my trendy startup employee. Or I'm a religioous fundamentalist buying alcohol to toss it in bulk into the ocean because alcohol is Satan. Etc. This data ain't reliable at all.
Also, people are already giving this info for free most of the time on social media. And it's not even a matter of fighting Google, or facebook, or amazon. This is going on all over the internet, and if they take down facebook something new will come up.
If anything, I think employment system, judicial system, political system and others will have to develop and fundamentally change. It's not like 'privacy' is the only matter the whole social complex is facing, at all.
Heavy alcohol abuse is not a crime, it's connected to serious collective mental health issues. This is one of the problems that deserve real attention, for instance.
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
My company actually did a very extensive study on this and found that the majority of websites utilize dark patterns. Only 25% of sites are even legally compliant even after deploying consent management software. Companies are openly flouting privacy laws and we actually found some of the worst offenders in the app space where consent mechanisms don't even exist within the apps themselves.
>The theft of my PII or the opposite? Please consider referring to it as spying over theft and PII about you, as opposed to your PII? Part of the server logs may be about you but are not yours per say.
Certainly seems like theft to me. Just because computers spew ridiculous amounts of PII does not mean company xyz llc has a right to collect that information or to use it for anything without educated and explicit opt in disclosure that verbosely enumerates every single instance in which said PII will be used between the time of collection and the heat death of the universe. 'server logs' fails to account for how tha…
>does not mean company xyz llc has a right to collect that information or to use it for anything...
I guess this is where our opinions differ. In order for them to be absent the right to collect it you must force them to forget. That's where it doesn't seem like your information, after all they need to erase it. I'm all for legislation to regulate it's use.
>The theft of my PII or the opposite? Please consider referring to it as spying over theft and PII about you, as opposed to your PII? Part of the server logs may be about you but are not yours per say.
Yeah, that’s a grey area actually. It’s why Google Analytics has the option of chopping off the last byte of IP addresses, for example. Better to assume all PII and PI even if not identifying, belongs to the user. GDPR is explicit on some of this and not on others. Shared information, or that deemed necessary, won’t be deleted on request for say Uber/Lyft. There is a financial transaction and a driver etc, they won’t…
>Better to assume all PII and PI even if not identifying, belongs to the user.
I agree from a liability standpoint, from a company's perspective. From a user perspective, better to assume all information that can be captured will be, it will eventually be available to all humanity and it doesn't belong to you.
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
And, an "accept" holds for seemingly till the end of time, while a "I don't accept" is valid not much more than the mouse button click echoes through my room before you stand before the dialog box yet again, contemplating why you don't do something more useful with your life.
Thank you for mentioning this. I feel as if I have to repeatedly jump through those hoops to decline on the very same sites every other day, if not visit.
Surely the GDPR has to have the foresight of dictating that my choice to accept or decline has to be valid for an equal amount of time, doesn't it? If I'm confronted with that popup as long as I'm declining the regulations are worthless.
> Think it's someone else's responsibility to make decisions about ethics (as an engineering prof, I see this all the time...students who say engineers' jobs are technology not ethics/morals) The problem is that they're correct in a practical sense. The company they work for might get fined, but all the engineers see is the performance review. This system encourages engineers to think of compliance and morality as so…
Morality (definition left as an exercise) is something you have to be able to afford. Get hungry enough, get tired of sleeping on cardboard enough, get tired enough of restrictions imposed on you by society for stupid mistakes you made while out of your mind ... and morality is a luxury you can't afford. (In many countries, that luxury is permanently out-of-reach for the great majority.) Now add to that the constant…
I see this argument a lot, I grew up in such an environment. But being moral is really not a luxury because there are several very rich people who are immoral. Being moral is easy or hard depending upon your means, but so is everything else. At the end of the day you have to think about what you are doing and you and solely you are responsible for this.
Also this whole argument is distracting from the fact that this is TrustArc we are talking about. Its an american company with 340 employees and over 20 million american dollars in annual revenue. When a company out of India does this same thing we can argue impact of means on morality then.