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

GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

iccl.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 433 posts

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#111

Post by [deleted] »

parasense wrote: post #66
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. It’s spyware. If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. We must correct the insanity and digital economic imbalance that spyware businesses have created.

> Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. According to who, you? > It’s spyware. How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? > If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data? > W…

[deleted]

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#113

Post by parkingrift »

parasense wrote: post #66
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. It’s spyware. If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. We must correct the insanity and digital economic imbalance that spyware businesses have created.

> Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. According to who, you? > It’s spyware. How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? > If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data? > W…

>According to who, you?

Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware.

>How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data?

It’s not “freely given away” when you need a team of attorneys to understand what you’ve agreed to and you have no audit rights. Point me to the public FB page where they clearly and easily define all points of data they collect.

> Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information.

Quite absurd to take this position after big tech companies ruined the internet economy with their spyware model. Is it your position that these companies were just responding to consumer demand to unknowingly give up their data in exchange for free services?

>Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic?

The only reason we have this spyware economy is because tech companies thought it easier to grow their enterprise off spyware than selling a legitimate product at a price.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#114

Post by Tomte »

donohoe wrote: post #52
elmerfud wrote: post #4

It was obvious to anyone technical they didn't work as they presented themselves to work, but it takes time for the courts to deal with such things. They are also totally annoying and I suspect there primary purpose was to annoy users and not actually comply with the GDPR. It was a way for these companies to fight the GDPR with a war of attrition. I'm glad you see with this round hasn't worked... Yet. I suspect that…

You are right. I also believe many publishers knew this too but the IAB provides a shield of sorts and buys time when it is inevitably (as in now) ruled illegal. Most ad-tech, and programatic advertising, is not compatible with GDPR. I think that is intentional on part of the EU - and something I am a fan of personally. The industry needs to shift - contextual ads or other innovations - others have done this. They re…

It's hard to start doing this when your competitors keep playing by the old rules.

My hope is that ever more aggressive enforcement will finally lead us to the point where the dams break and everyone scrambles to get compliant at once.

The sooner, the better. But I realize that the legal system needs to ramp up the pressure, they cannot start with company-destroying fines on day one.

These rulings and fines keep me in good spirits, because I think we're actually getting there. Slowly, but still.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#115

Post by jimmaswell »

phh wrote: post #6

My favorite part is: > All data collected through the TCF must now be deleted by the more than 1,000 companies that pay IAB Europe to use the TCF. This includes Google’s, Amazon’s and Microsoft’s online advertising businesses. It's not just that they need to find new ways to screw users. It's that since they screwed users, they also must lose their ill-gained data. Which will probably be a nice deterrent against them…

How are they screwing users? By showing them relevant ads?

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#116

Post by parkingrift »

endisneigh wrote: post #82
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. It’s spyware. If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. We must correct the insanity and digital economic imbalance that spyware businesses have created.

Isn't the point you're making already possible with "if no one visits your spyware ridden site, the market has spoken, too bad?

Transparency. People are overwhelmingly unaware of the volume and types of data that is collected on them.

And at this point the free market can’t resolve this. The spyware model has absolutely ruined the internet economy. There is no way to compete against a spyware company with a paid product.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#117

Post by marcus_holmes »

colechristensen wrote: post #104
Scarblac wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary thing is that it's the EU doing this. Our national elected governments are not interested in actually fixing things like this because it doesn't immediately win votes, and there is only a limited number of national civil servants so nobody is working on this kind of thing on a national scale. But put those civil servants in a committee in Brussels with not as much short term pressure, and they can work out…

Europe is obviously walking very slowly towards federalism without saying it too loudly.

Germany and France are saying it fairly loudly - they've never hidden their intent to make the EU a federal, unified, state.

And with Brexit, the biggest obstacle to that has been removed - the UK never wanted to be part of a Federal EU (because we always considered ourselves part of the British Empire/Commonwealth). There are other EU countries who aren't wildly enthusiastic about a Federal EU too, but it was always the UK being the most loudly opposed to it.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#118

Post by Macha »

rjmunro wrote: post #87
tux3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say you live in a two-party first past the post system. If what you want to express is "I like privacy regulations", the single bit of information that your vote conveys does a very limited job of communicating what issues you actually care about. The signal in traditional voting is very diluted. You vote on a person that you think supports some of the things you care about. You are not allowed to weight in on indivi…

How many EU countries run a "two-party first past the post system" nowadays? If you are in a first past the post system, and in a safe seat, vote for one of the no-chance-of-winning candidates who best represents your views. Although they won't win, the fact that they are getting votes will be noticed and the main 2 parties will respond by adopting some of their policies. E.g. in the UK as more people vote for the Gr…

Even in a decent PR multi-party system. Our green party for example is environment first, left wing economics second, public transit, pro-agriculture, anti-nuclear, somewhere down the list is internet privacy.

Or maybe I could vote for the labour party, which are centre left economics, pro-EU, pro-housing expansion, pro-healthcare investment, pro-environment, somewhere down the list is internet privacy

The idea that there's a party that (a) both has the same views on all issues as you do, (b) has sufficient votes to get seats and (c) orders issues in the same importance you do, for everyone, is clearly not valid. More parties = more choices, and this is often better, but ultimately we'd end up with de facto direct democracy to have a party with the exact views for every person.

Similarly, even for myself, I consider internet privacy important. Maybe I should vote the for the pirate party then? Except I consider the environment more important and our pirate party is so small that it hasn't even considered a position on non-privacy related issues, never mind have an adequate plan for how we're going to make a transition from a heavily fossil fuel based power supply. Even on that environmental issue, I think the green party's anti-nuclear stance has historically been a mistake, but if the others are just going to build more gas plants, I'll deal with it.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#119

Post by marcus_holmes »

optimalsolver wrote: post #19
gilrain wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish my government looked out for me like this.

Then vote for it! Just kidding.

Then riot for it!

Maybe kidding? Seems the only way to get a single-issue topic on the agenda these days.

Re: GDPR enforcer rules that IAB Europe’s consent popups are unlawful

#120

Post by endisneigh »

parkingrift wrote: post #116
endisneigh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point you're making already possible with "if no one visits your spyware ridden site, the market has spoken, too bad?

Transparency. People are overwhelmingly unaware of the volume and types of data that is collected on them. And at this point the free market can’t resolve this. The spyware model has absolutely ruined the internet economy. There is no way to compete against a spyware company with a paid product.

If people are choosing "spyware" over a "paid" product, perhaps they just don't care about data collection that much. Isn't that the logical conclusion?

Objectively ads have added more money into the internet economy than ever before. Curious where you're getting your numbers. 20 years ago "YouTuber" wasn't even a profession. The idea some rando with a microphone and a camera could make millions was unheard of. It's only possible with ads.

Post reply on HN