Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#101

Post by danaris »

orwin wrote: post #67
Kovah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be a few fixes, if the politics would be interested in actually fixing this loophole. - deny is the default: one button to deny everything but one accept button for every partner - respect DO NOT TRACK, and force software/hardware providers to enable it by default - making payments for non-tracking illegal - remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable…

> - deny is the default: one button to deny everything but one accept button for every partner Yes, that's in the law. I you do not click on consent, the default is deny everything, and a button to refuse everything should be easy to access. > - making payments for non-tracking illegal In the law too. > - remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable everything Tru…

> and a button to refuse everything should be easy to access.

Part of the problem with this is the website operators who maliciously interpret this to mean "also refuse the cookie that says what I selected", so you have to select it every time you visit. (I even hit a site a few weeks ago that required it on every page when I refused.)

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#102

Post by DemocracyFTW2 »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #76
Kovah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be a few fixes, if the politics would be interested in actually fixing this loophole. - deny is the default: one button to deny everything but one accept button for every partner - respect DO NOT TRACK, and force software/hardware providers to enable it by default - making payments for non-tracking illegal - remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable…

> making payments for non-tracking illegal This keeps surfacing in discussions about tracking. I'm wondering how do you propose for b2c software companies to make money if they can't either properly advertise or require you to pay to opt-out? Is this just an entitled leftie thing ("Elon Musk should pay for my Instagram!") or is there a genuine though-out plan for another reasonable business model?

> entitled leftie thing ("Elon Musk should pay for my Instagram!")

At least ever since Musk syphoned billions of dollars from the government, then illegally intervened in elections at home and abroad, then went on to destroy USAID, then went after pension funds I believe it would be just fair if he was made to pay personally for some expenses of private people, yes. You don't have to be particularly left to find that.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#103

Post by eckelhesten »

stvltvs wrote: post #90
eckelhesten wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I got a dollar for every person suckered into buying Samsung products… But to stay on topic: never! connect your tv to the internet. My LG has been offline for around 5 years now after automatically installing unwanted apps. Since then, I run everything via an Apple TV 4K which works way better than LGs own software does anyway.

Putting on tinfoil hat... how do we know it isn't connecting to our neighbors' open WiFi?

That would be a lawsuit waiting.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#104

Post by [deleted] »

troupo wrote: post #98
lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Some things you can self-host (email, Mastodon instance, etc), others are sponsored (HN). I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products - voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement, not "EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11".

> Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Which is 90% of modern internet > I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products I still don't understand why you keep defending pervasive and invasive tracking of everything you do 24/7 across every site, and device, and service you visit or use even in passing. > v…

[deleted]

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#105

Post by timr »

happymellon wrote: post #44
timr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely has little relationship to what is actually in the page. They had to do GDPR, didn't or couldn't spend a lot of time on it -- or had an especially conservative corporate counsel -- and ended up just getting a list of every company they've ever worked with, for any reason, "to be safe". For most companies this can easily be thousands of partners, and going through that list and figuring out exactly who might ge…

> or had an especially conservative corporate counsel And once again we shall see how being conservative sounds like it might save you money but costs you dearly in the long run.

Yeah, but again, see the other part of what I wrote -- doing it "right" can be insanely expensive, and so you get an incentive to be conservative.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#106

Post by anon48293 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #92
anon48293 wrote: post #61

Just ban ads already. I don’t want ads. I don’t want to be tracked. I should have the right to never interact with either, unless explicit, informed and single-button-revocable consent is given.

Half of the people in the world use facebook/ig every month and revealed preferences show they have no interest in banning ads

What about the other half?

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#107

Post by happymellon »

timr wrote: post #105
happymellon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or had an especially conservative corporate counsel And once again we shall see how being conservative sounds like it might save you money but costs you dearly in the long run.

Yeah, but again, see the other part of what I wrote -- doing it "right" can be insanely expensive, and so you get an incentive to be conservative.

I read what you wrote.

Ultimately that is what they are having to do though, it's just costing them twice as much by pretending that being conservative and not actually looking at the problem saved them.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#108

Post by BenjiWiebe »

stvltvs wrote: post #96
BenjiWiebe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do your neighbors have open Wi-Fi? I'm a country dweller, but when I'm in town I look at the Wi-Fi list (in horror) sometimes, and it's really rare to see an open Wi-Fi network.

Anecdotal but my laptop just found 2 open WiFi networks out of 20. One's enough though.

Are they truly open, or are they captive portals? Of course, it might be possible to exfiltrate data through a captive portal network, depending on how they implement the portal.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#109

Post by consentkeep »

jtreitz wrote: post #17

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN