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

251–260 of 433 posts

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

#251

Post by alkonaut »

chefandy wrote: post #75

We designers must reasonably but seriously convey the user-hostility of these patterns to higher-ups at every available opportunity. Sure, you'll get overruled by the dollar-focused Jr. Marketing Exec. On the other hand, the folks who say things like "Refuse! It's a designers job to say no!" probably have much bigger savings accounts than I and most others do... but not saying anything implies consent, and that's whe…

Most large companies have ethics hotlines you are expected to call when there is something questionable ethically or legally going on that might be difficult to bring up to a superior.

Personally I'd refuse to add a dark pattern cookie dialog, but I'm in the privileged position of being able to switch jobs.

But regardless, I'd probably send the ethics hotline an email saying that regulations are violated. Perhaps I'd send an email to the relevant regulator too, just in case.

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

#252

Post by glenstein »

jimmaswell wrote: post #115
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?

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

If the true purpose of ads is just an innocent venture in creating beneficial user experiences with helpful suggestions, then we can improve that system by orders of magnitude by getting rid of distortions associated with paid placement.

Then we can reap all of the benefits without having to worry about the experience being compromised by the distorting effects of self-interest, associated with privileged placement in exchange for payment.

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

#253

Post by ricardobeat »

secondcoming wrote: post #68

I don't understand the findings. The TCF system doesn't collect personal information. The spec is at [0]. CMPs are the popups responsible for creating the TCF string. The IAB provides a spec for how these should operate, but does not supply one of its own. These can absolutely misbehave, and the IAB has previously notified the adtech industry about known misbehaving CMPs. [0] https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertising…

My understanding so far is that the TCF allows providers to accept 'legitimate interest' (instead of direct user consent) as a valid legal basis to store or process user data. This is commonly used for user tracking and advertisement / profiling, meaning you'll get tracked even if you clicked the 'Reject All' button.

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

#254

Post by Nextgrid »

endisneigh wrote: post #249
Nextgrid wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a regression? I'd argue an ad in Times Square (or a reputable print newspaper) is a major upgrade from the cesspool that is internet advertising. Seeing an ad there signals to me that the brand has enough money to clear the huge barrier to entry (thus is unlikely to be a fly-by-night scam) and doesn't mind being seen by everyone. This gives me more confidence as a consumer to purchase their product. > If you do…

If it’s an upgrade then you should do it and stop trying to force things for others. I’m really not even sure what your point is. You just want others to do what you want?

My point is that I want everyone to be provided a clear choice - that's what the GDPR attempts to do. The GDPR doesn't actually outlaw targeted ads, it just mandates that the user is given a clear breakdown of the data being collected and how it will be used and then they can choose whether they're willing to opt-in.

By your reasoning, malware should also be legal and it's up to people to learn the ramifications of it and how to protect themselves. We should not force others to miss out on the "benefits" of malware wouldn't we?

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

#255

Post by belorn »

endisneigh wrote: post #146
9dev wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't care about a lot of things. Mainly because they don't understand them, or don't know about them: climate change, cancerous substances, plastic waste, homeless people, illegal whaling, domestic cats killing singing birds, sewing winter clothing or properly managing their savings. That is why we have subject matter experts providing guidance for people in a world too complex to grasp or even care about eve…

> Advertising companies are ruining the internet for everyone, some people are just too unaware to realise it. Sounds like projection. Though I'd agree that most internet users don't like ads, what's true is that most internet users don't like paying for things. Using YouTube as an example, the most popular site on the internet, the vast majority of people do not pay for YouTube premium even though it's available. At…

Why stop at circa-2000s internet when we got a whole past to go back to. We don't need to go far before much of current day market regulations didn't exist and people could freely choose to do things and not do things as much they wanted.

Coal mines that used indebted servitude out competed mines that did not, and if people didn't want to go into indebted servitude they could always choose to not sign the contract. The market spoke and the customers choose of their own free will to go to the company store, paying more than they earned, and increased their debt year after year.

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

#256

Post by ocdtrekkie »

alkonaut wrote: post #245

Good. Now pick a random one of the companies that used this particular product/service and make an example of them. The problem I think until now has basically been that sites that rely on tracking ads know they are in violation. They don't want to comply, because it would be too costly. Basically, a meeting at one of these businesses (I'm imagining) has a conversation where people say "Ok what do we do about the coo…

If you want to solve the problem, roll up on Google and Facebook headquarters, throw Sundar and Zuckerberg in jail for a year.

Companies will think twice about their approach of "claim compliance until proven otherwise and then take the wrist slap".

Put CEOs in prison and you'll see lasting change. As long as they can harm billions of people and only pay a modest fine in return, they will not change.

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

#257

Post by phh »

msla wrote: post #195
phh wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you prove there is no PII in the ML model? It has been proven countless times that it's possible to extract learning data from models. I can't see how you can prove the opposite, except, maybe, with federated learning (but even then, you need to good "ratio" of noise)

> How do you prove there is no PII in the ML model? Is "innocent until proven guilty" not a maxim in European justice?

It's not possible to discuss legality of something, until a judge said we are allowed to discuss it? What?

So I can murder someone, and say "Innocent until proven guilty", and forbid anyone from discussing whether I'm a murderer, until I'm actually judged guilty?

But ok, sounds like you're nitpicking on my words, so let me rephrase the comment you're replying to.

"Considering that we have dozens of research papers showing that public models contain PII, how can we trust that FAANG's private models doesn't without auditing? It sounds safe to assume it does contain PII"

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

#258

Post by endisneigh »

Nextgrid wrote: post #247
endisneigh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Trash content is just your opinion. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.

The fact that nobody wants to pay their hard-earned dollars for it suggests it's more than just his opinion. In fact, let's imagine a system where one side provides ads that you can watch to accumulate a monetary balance and the other provides content (including the aforementioned trash). Do you think people will still watch and choose to pay for said trash content? Or will they choose to spend that money on better c…

That’s not the situation so it’s irrelevant.

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

#259

Post by akireu »

dustymcp wrote: post #208
bitcharmer wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countless articles and media pieces over the years on the plethora of unethical ways our data gets sold, resold and abused and still you ask what's wrong...

Yet No alternative have arrived to ads, people are used to free software how do you circumvent these things ?

Ads aren't the problem, the surveillance is. That you can't have the former without the latter is a myth FB and Google peddle to justify their existence. They don't even need your data all that much - the duopoly the myth perpetuates is what matters. There's no conclusive proof that personalized ads are more efficient than old banner networks, much less that FB's or Google's services are worth the huge share of profits they take as intermediaries.

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

#260

Post by denton-scratch »

andylynch wrote: post #158
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…

Remember you have MEPs representing you as well. European elections too often play a distant second fiddle to domestic ones but this really should not be the case.

MEPs sit in the European Parliament, which is a talking shop, with very limited powers. It's hardly surprising that few Europeans know who their MEP is.
Post reply on HN