3 ms·

So, you put those points into an interstitial. All sites create a similar looking interstitial with the same "Accept" checkbox. It becomes user behaviour (a la

So, you put those points into an interstitial. All sites create a similar looking interstitial with the same "Accept" checkbox. It becomes user behaviour (a la invasive cookie notices), cycle continues. I don't see how the informed consent bit wont become the same mindless box-ticking exercise web users already undertake? You can "use" the service, but it'll be positioned that it's not an option but to accept.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> You can "use" the service, but it'll be positioned that it's not an option but to accept. I feel this time around, such a construct will open the company to legal liability, and there's plenty of people (myself included) who will gladly report shady practices like that. EU seems really into making consent actually meaningful, so why I can't be sure, I'm convinced the "mindless box-ticking exercise" scenario won't play out.
- wastedhours 9y ago
  Really? To be honest, although I'm a marketer, even as a consumer, I believe if I don't accept the parameters and terms of the application, I shouldn't use it. Obviously that philosophy is only really eligible for private sector organisations, but GDPR holds public ones to a higher bar in any case. IANAL, but I also think a lot of companies will be well argued on using "Legitimate interests" as a basis for processing instead for a lot of things. Then others will argue on "Consent should not be a precondition of signing up to a service unless necessary for that service." and use "processing is necessary for the performance of a contract" as the basis (especially if there's money involved). Obviously, the large companies will be able to handle this better and employ decent legal teams to argue for using those basis' - not because they're "good actors", just they've got the cash and knowledge to argue better. It's the smaller business owners (who as with VAT MOSS) are going to be screwed over the most.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> You can "use" the service, but it'll be positioned that it's not an option but to accept. I feel this time around, such a construct will open the company to legal liability, and there's plenty of people (myself included) who will gladly report shady practices like that. EU seems really into making consent actually meaningful, so why I can't be sure, I'm convinced the "mindless box-ticking exercise" scenario won't play out.

wastedhours 9y ago
Really? To be honest, although I'm a marketer, even as a consumer, I believe if I don't accept the parameters and terms of the application, I shouldn't use it. Obviously that philosophy is only really eligible for private sector organisations, but GDPR holds public ones to a higher bar in any case. IANAL, but I also think a lot of companies will be well argued on using "Legitimate interests" as a basis for processing instead for a lot of things. Then others will argue on "Consent should not be a precondition of signing up to a service unless necessary for that service." and use "processing is necessary for the performance of a contract" as the basis (especially if there's money involved). Obviously, the large companies will be able to handle this better and employ decent legal teams to argue for using those basis' - not because they're "good actors", just they've got the cash and knowledge to argue better. It's the smaller business owners (who as with VAT MOSS) are going to be screwed over the most.