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

261–270 of 433 posts

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

#261

Post by endisneigh »

Nextgrid wrote: post #254
endisneigh wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Malware is already legal to begin with. And yes, people should learn to trust trusted entities. Those entities will not allow malware. Government intervention is unnecessary.

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

#262

Post by ovi256 »

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…

I don't think it's much of a deterrent, because there's no clawback of the ill gotten gains from the use of that data. That's something done routinely in, say, fraud cases.

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

#264

Post by mindslight »

Isinlor wrote: post #188
rkagerer wrote: post #123

To be frank, the practical result of GDPR is that it made my browsing experience worse. Nearly every website opens with an annoying cookie popup, often blocking the content (or reducing it to a fraction of my screen on mobile). I've never once clicked "Yes, track everything", except by accident when tricked into it by deceptive UI (eg. a button designed to look more inviting than its less invasive counterpart). I get…

There should be some separate law that would oblige companies to accept "do-not-track" HTTP header. Then we could just set it in our browser settings.

Do we even need a law, or would another case by Max Schrems suffice? The intent of Do Not Track is quite clear.

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

#265

Post by blibble »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #96
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…

The "EU doing things" is not detached from your national government. In fact all EU legislation is being approved by your national government in the EU Council and the EU commission has to report there. (As well as the EU parliament, however the EU parliament is weak ...) Edit: maybe as addition in the last point in parentheses: The EU parliament is purposely weak, as the EU is a union of states and the member state…

> In fact all EU legislation is being approved by your national government in the EU Council

it's via QMV, not unanimity

so no need for "your" national government to approve it

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

#266

Post by Nextgrid »

endisneigh wrote: post #261
Nextgrid wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Malware is already legal to begin with. And yes, people should learn to trust trusted entities. Those entities will not allow malware. Government intervention is unnecessary.

> Malware is already legal to begin with.

Source?

> people should learn to trust trusted entities

When advertising corrupts the market there is no such thing as trusted entities. Find me a modern, 4K HDR TV that doesn't have advertising or advertising-related data collection in a big-box store without going for niche options such as professional digital-signage displays.

> Government intervention is unnecessary.

Companies who had their computers ransomwared would disagree, and so will consumers who had their payment details compromised or sensitive pictures disclosed. I wonder, in your mind, where do you draw the line? Violence? You could argue violence also doesn't need to be outlawed and it's up to everyone to build their houses like bunkers, always wear armor, drive a tank and carry guns to defend themselves.

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

#267

Post by blibble »

the_biot wrote: post #139
marcus_holmes wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's true that the UK was always the biggest opponent, but don't kid yourself that the rest of the EU is on board with federalizing. There is no popular mandate for that whatsoever. Just look at what happens whenever some EU treaty needs ratifying by national referendum.

> There is no popular mandate for that whatsoever.

that never stopped it before, just look at the "Constitution for Europe"

rejected by the French and Dutch electorates

it was then rejigged slightly and then pushed through as the Treaty of Lisbon (without pesky referendums)

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

#268

Post by aembleton »

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.

Domestic politicians have the ability to instigate changes to legislation. MEPs lack that power - all they can do is block bad legislation from getting passed.

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

#269

Post by wongarsu »

riddleronroof wrote: post #184
bajtos wrote: post #2

Google, Amazon, and the entire tracking industry relies on IAB Europe’s consent system, which has now been found to be illegal following complaints coordinated by ICCL. EU data protection authorities find that the consent popups that plagued Europeans for years are illegal. All data collected through them must be deleted. This decision impacts Google’s, Amazon’s and Microsoft’s online advertising businesses.

Ok but I don’t get how this consent system ran for years? How can one get pre approved? The issue here isn’t that they collected data (it’s own problems), but they they didn’t use the right language! Does this mean it will be a long term of conditions like apple does every time we use a website? ICCL might have made internet worse with this. Not better.

> Does this mean it will be a long term of conditions like apple does every time we use a website

We call that a privacy agreement. But having a proper privacy agreement that lists what data is collected and what happens with it is far from the only part of the ruling

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

#270

Post by alkonaut »

endisneigh wrote: post #232
alkonaut wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a site offers the choice between either funding via "good" (Non tracking, no malware etc) ads, and a fee, then I'm completely happy with their business model. A lot of sites however, don't do this. Of course, the reality is that if they _did_ use "good" ads, then the free version wouldn't make enough money (at least not in today's ad market). So either the free version couldn't exist, OR it would need to be subsid…

I disagree with what you’re saying. Basically your point is that most content on the internet should go away because you don’t like ads. Good luck with that. Instead, you should treat all the sites that have ads as inaccessible and personally use the small percentage that fit your needs. Everyone wins.

> Basically your point is that most content on the internet should go away because you don’t like ads.

No. I'm conpletely fine with ads. This isn't about ads vs.no ads. This is about "bad" ads. The wholeseale trading in people's information. It's a transaction where the price (Being their PII sold somewhere) isn't visible to the buyer.

The reason we ended up where we are now where a site MUST use horrible adtech, is this: Because there exists ways of displaying pinpoint targeted tracking ads through unscrupulous adtech companies then that's what sets the baseline revenue for ads. Show ads that are 1/10th as efficient? You'll get just 1/10th the revenue. It's what a website has to do.

So if I'm a site that wants to show "ethical" ads, I can't. Because the ad market is such that ethical ads don't make money. If, however, bad ads don't exist - then ethical advertising could be able to make more money again. The endgame of all this isn't forcing all sites to either die or become paid services. To me the important outcome is to level the playing field between those that display (or want to display) "better" ads.

Post reply on HN