61–70 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As my hosts-file and ad/script blocker are configured to block tracking and advertising I always click: Accept all. This is by default the quickest way to get to the content. Without compromising privacy by using addons.
Hmm. How does one block ads without a plug-in?
Oh and Twitter.
I wish there was a standard browser API for this. If the law is going to force this to be a thing, and it's not going away, web standards should respond. It could even just be a flag in the cookie itself declaring that something isn't strictly necessary.
There is a misconception, they don't want it do be convenient, the all purpose is to as annoying as possible and legal, to force you to use the easy allow-all-path. So even if there is an API they won't use it. They don't want to give you a choice, they want that you to allows all access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be. At least not if you want to accept cookies. Declining is easy. You can just decline everything (technically) not necessary. The problem is, that consent must be given freely and fully informed. And this is the catch. Automatic acceptance isn't fully informed and with that the consent isn't valid. So it would put the companies in danger and therefore no company could honor this standard. Sadly - as it wou…
"Accept all" and the "Deny all" must be both be the same level of "easy-ness" I think this is not clear until it has been tested in court. Many websites now have two offers: Free with 3rd part ads and paid. Surely paying is much less easy than clicking "Ok, show me the content with 3rd party ads". It will be very interesting, how courts see this.
I wish there was a standard browser API for this. If the law is going to force this to be a thing, and it's not going away, web standards should respond. It could even just be a flag in the cookie itself declaring that something isn't strictly necessary.
GDPR isn't about cookies, it's about collecting, storing and transferring data. Done properly, GDPR notices should allow users to opt in to having data about themselves collected by the interested company (and other things like acknowledging the relationships and responsibilities formed by that consent - like requesting deletion and having it honoured).
We just happen to use cookies to do much of that collection. We also already had "the cookie law", so it seems "pragmatic" to piggy back the two things, for the sake of "user convenience".
GDPR creates responsibilities and guidance on all the database tables, the system designs, the job descriptions and so on which operate around data about people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be. At least not if you want to accept cookies. Declining is easy. You can just decline everything (technically) not necessary. The problem is, that consent must be given freely and fully informed. And this is the catch. Automatic acceptance isn't fully informed and with that the consent isn't valid. So it would put the companies in danger and therefore no company could honor this standard. Sadly - as it wou…
"Accept all" and the "Deny all" must be both be the same level of "easy-ness" I think this is not clear until it has been tested in court. Many websites now have two offers: Free with 3rd part ads and paid. Surely paying is much less easy than clicking "Ok, show me the content with 3rd party ads". It will be very interesting, how courts see this.
The really problem is enforcement has been lacking, this is what NOYB are co. are working to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be. At least not if you want to accept cookies. Declining is easy. You can just decline everything (technically) not necessary. The problem is, that consent must be given freely and fully informed. And this is the catch. Automatic acceptance isn't fully informed and with that the consent isn't valid. So it would put the companies in danger and therefore no company could honor this standard. Sadly - as it wou…
How do sites abuse Legitimate Interest? LI is something vendors declare to the IAB, not the sites. These CMPs just present that information to the user (in complicated ways) so they can Accept/Decline/Object.
By pretending that advertisement and tracking are part of Legitimate Interest, and having a "secondary section" that is not only pre-accepted, but also overrides the proper consent part.
To really decline consent in those cases, you must uncheck all "Legitimate Interest" checkboxes. Not only those things are not legitimate interest, this also overrides the lack-of-consent provided by users for a couple vendors.
Legitimate interest is not a get out of jail free card. You can't apply it to everything and pretend you got consent.
Or just activate the filter in uBlock Origin: Filter Lists -> Annoyances -> EasyList Cookie
I've used it, but it's not perfect and might occasionally break some websites (e.g can't scroll).
/FanboyNZ
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be. At least not if you want to accept cookies. Declining is easy. You can just decline everything (technically) not necessary. The problem is, that consent must be given freely and fully informed. And this is the catch. Automatic acceptance isn't fully informed and with that the consent isn't valid. So it would put the companies in danger and therefore no company could honor this standard. Sadly - as it wou…
It should literally be a setting in the browser - auto decline. That would make everyone's life a lot easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the main issue here; the EU mandated consent and gave guidelines on what that consent might look like, but they left implementation down to the industry, which decided to do it themselves (often using dark patterns, for which some companies already got fined) instead of integrating it in browsers. I remember 20 odd years ago now when Firefox came out with a popup blocker standard, built-in. Whatever happened t…
I wouldn't be surprised if Googles consent form intentionally broke every GDPR rule. First time I saw it it didn't bombard me with dark patterns, it sent me down a rabbit hole of near infinite options where I couldn't even tell if any of them where relevant for Google search. They don't want to give users a quick and easy way to opt out, especially not while they are still working on replacement APIs that use sleight…
* https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-google-fined-150-million-euro...
