51–60 of 74 posts
It's not illegal to just cookie-wall your whole site without options, or is it? This site here e.g. does it: https://www.spiegel.de/ imprint is still reachable, but if you want to read this news site you'll have to allow all the tracking crap.
As a European I encounter a lot dark patterns to circumvent privacy laws. Some just ignore your choice and track you. Some don't give you a reject option. Some make it really really annoying (or slow) to reject. Do you think it's possible to politely ask them on twitter to change? Maybe as a group?
> Some make it really really annoying (or slow) to reject. Some even make it slow to accept, or reload to a homepage after submitting, instead of back to the original page. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But apparently people just accept it as the way the internet is nowadays.
If you are talking about this and not malicious reloads that make giving a consent harder. (I haven't seen that latter and the former doesn't bother me.)
Why are you all talking about the "reject option", which implicitly considers the opt-in to be the default? The default MUST be the opt-out (for non-essential cookies), hence there is no "reject" because there must be the "accept".
Now a lot of sites play tricks to make the reject/out-out a hard deliberately choice. (Which IS a violation of the GDPR, of course.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The service cannot be dependent on the acceptance of third party cookies, no. That is, the service provided to those that reject third party cookies cannot be worse (slower or incomplete, for example) compared to the visitors who accept cookies. So you can supply an ad supported version and a paid version without ads, but you cannot require that those that choose the ad supported version must accept tracking ads.
I have gotten confirmation from several DPAs that state a very different interpretation. You can’t segregate the same service, two distinct services one that is provided with ads that include 3rd party cookies and a separate paid service that does not is perfectly fine. What you cannot do is to create multiple tiers in a free service based on different levels of tracking.
What you are describing sounds like a business can simply declare “well untargeted ads doesn’t pay enough so the options are tracking ads or paid subscriptions”. The regulation shouldn’t and doesn’t let a site make that decision. It would make it completely useless!
These accept-only 'consents' do the same type of trolling. Sometimes they even say on top of that that by using the site you accept their use of cookies. (Which is OK, as long as they only use essential, e.g. session cookies, but a lot of the time it's not the case.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DPA (Lower Saxony) says it's not. German link: https://lfd.niedersachsen.de/startseite/themen/internet/date... They call it Nudging. I might translate this to a proper blog post in English.
I noticed that too. A lot of German media started doing this ("pur" subscription vs "full" subscription which also gives access to additional paywalled articles). I would be surprised if these huge publishers didn't do their legal legwork - or they are doing it just waiting for a test lawsuit to clarify the reading of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have gotten confirmation from several DPAs that state a very different interpretation. You can’t segregate the same service, two distinct services one that is provided with ads that include 3rd party cookies and a separate paid service that does not is perfectly fine. What you cannot do is to create multiple tiers in a free service based on different levels of tracking.
That sounds like an extremely business friendly interpretation of the regulation. Creating a separate service (the paid one) shouldn’t in any way change the circumstances for the first service (the one with ads). What you are describing sounds like a business can simply declare “well untargeted ads doesn’t pay enough so the options are tracking ads or paid subscriptions”. The regulation shouldn’t and doesn’t let a si…
You can’t force someone to provide their business at a loss.
As long as you don’t penalize or segregate users based on their decision alone it does not run afoul of GDPR, neither does blocking someone completely you just need to have a valid business reason for doing that and it has to be tied to the nature of the service including how it’s funded.
https://twitter.com/LetMeReject/status/1366473613709365257?s...
Thanks to everyone supporting this. We changed the world a little bit.
If you think this format has potential please follow @LetMeReject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an extremely business friendly interpretation of the regulation. Creating a separate service (the paid one) shouldn’t in any way change the circumstances for the first service (the one with ads). What you are describing sounds like a business can simply declare “well untargeted ads doesn’t pay enough so the options are tracking ads or paid subscriptions”. The regulation shouldn’t and doesn’t let a si…
DPAs including the German on are quite “business” friendly unless it will be challenged in court. You can’t force someone to provide their business at a loss. As long as you don’t penalize or segregate users based on their decision alone it does not run afoul of GDPR, neither does blocking someone completely you just need to have a valid business reason for doing that and it has to be tied to the nature of the servic…
Of course not. But no one is forced to provide the ad funded service at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The service cannot be dependent on the acceptance of third party cookies, no. That is, the service provided to those that reject third party cookies cannot be worse (slower or incomplete, for example) compared to the visitors who accept cookies. So you can supply an ad supported version and a paid version without ads, but you cannot require that those that choose the ad supported version must accept tracking ads.
I have gotten confirmation from several DPAs that state a very different interpretation. You can’t segregate the same service, two distinct services one that is provided with ads that include 3rd party cookies and a separate paid service that does not is perfectly fine. What you cannot do is to create multiple tiers in a free service based on different levels of tracking.