31–40 of 110 posts
Is the issue here a lack of “Reject All” button? Or strictly the number of partners?
It's the definition of "informed consent". Can I actually go through a couple of thousand 3rd parties and confirm that their policies all conform to my data handling requirements?
My Samsung TV which I bought 8 years ago now suddenly asks me if it's okay they share data with their over 200 partners. They have the nerves to headline this with "protect your privacy". Generally not a big fan of EU policing but I wish somebody sued them over this. > Improving Your Experience and Protecting Your Privacy on Samsung TV Plus > Samsung and our 264 partners use information about you and your device in o…
Is the issue here a lack of “Reject All” button? Or strictly the number of partners?
The issue is that even if you click "Accept" there is no reasonable way to infer that the user has given informed consent, because becoming informed would likely take days or weeks. As such the conditions for data sharing are not met and it is likely to be illegal.
Then it is basically impossible to consent to any kind of tracking, because users cannot become informed for any number of 3rd parties -- even a single one.
Still wondering how "freely given, informed, specific and unambiguous" is fulfilled by "sure you can opt-out of tracking - by buying a premium subscription. Also, here are our 589 'partners' that all claim legitimate interest" but here we are.
Europe doesn’t enforce the law. Cookie banners are similarly pointless.
I've seen similar on some android apps I think, where it will ask you if you consent to sharing data with partners or something similar. When you say no there's a huge list of partners you have to disable one by one, it's probably 15 minutes of work to go through them all. I can't think of an example app right now, but usually it's on first install or something like that. Not sure GDPR applies to apps though.
> Not sure GDPR applies to apps though. GDPR applies to we the people and the organizations who hold our data. Doesn't matter if it's morse code on paper strips. If we can dictate warnings on tobacco packages, we can dictate the wording on consent banners to not be "We care about your privacy" but instead "We want to track you for profit".
At least the banners that say "we value your privacy" are honest about it
Still wondering how "freely given, informed, specific and unambiguous" is fulfilled by "sure you can opt-out of tracking - by buying a premium subscription. Also, here are our 589 'partners' that all claim legitimate interest" but here we are.
Legitimate interest does not exist and is a loophole in the law which should be killed. You can challenge it but the authorities who should handle that are grossly underfunded.
Or, if reforms do pass, they get reversed the next time the counter-party gains enough power in Congress to roll back the progress.
Can someone who works in commercial web dev explain how companies even end up with this much crap pulled into their websites?
You can usually check the ads.txt file on a website to see which companies are allowed to bid for ad space on there. For example, for dict.cc, the website in question:
The ones labelled "RESELLER" will probably share your data with even more ad companies.
[flagged]
Still wondering how "freely given, informed, specific and unambiguous" is fulfilled by "sure you can opt-out of tracking - by buying a premium subscription. Also, here are our 589 'partners' that all claim legitimate interest" but here we are.
Legitimate interest does not exist and is a loophole in the law which should be killed. You can challenge it but the authorities who should handle that are grossly underfunded.