5 ms·

Apparently neither is The Verge, having a fixed footer popup with the only option being "I Accept" doesn't comply with the guidelines

by kikki 8y ago

nwellnhof 8y ago
Well, you have the option to leave their website. It's still unclear to me whether this violates the GDPR. Art. 7 (4) of the GDPR says: > When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. You don't enter a contract when visiting a news site.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
davidhyde 8y ago
The cookie law was flawed from the beginning because it allowed companies an opt-out mechanism (which we see via these cookie banners). This is even the case if the user does not consent. A company cannot force or even ask a user to opt out of GDPR so, unless a company misreads the law, we won't be seeing useless GDPR banners.
anewhnaccount2 8y ago
I believe it's the ePrivacy regulation rather than the GDPR that applies here. It's my understanding that you no longer need permission for certain usages of cookies where they're needed for certain functionality, such as shopping carts - and possibly some degree of tracking -- perhaps -- if some or all of the following are done: * The data isn't retained for too long * IP addresses are anonymised * Session cookies or cookies with a near future expiration date are used * First party cookies are used What exactly you need to do is not always totally clear, but usually the balancing test works like "is it required for legitimate business purposes that the user is likely to expect". If they don't need permission at all, then they're free to ask away. (Although it does show that people have failed to understand these changes in the law.)
simonbarker87 8y ago
It complies so long as: 1. Tracking is not enabled until you click it and 2. You can still use the core functionality of the site without accepting So long as you can still read the website around the pop up and they don’t activate tracking until you accept it then they are in the clear. The banner can be annoying as it wants as well.
- Guest9812398 8y ago
  Yep, this is right. You can technically use the service without giving consent, so it meets the guidelines. However, the Verge will make that consent box as annoying as possible to encourage you into accepting. Oh, you don't want half of your screen blocked? Well, just click this simple button and sign away your soul. All the big companies are doing something similar. If you want to be an honest publisher and follow the laws, you can have a clearly written consent box that lets users accept or decline. However, you'll see 95% of people decline, and take a big hit on your revenue while your competitors prosper. What are we really accomplishing? We're just going to have popups on every site, that do their best into tricking users into accepting. Do you want to see other examples of consent management solutions that will be appearing soon? https://www.quantcast.com/gdpr/consent-management-solution/ https://www.quantcast.com/gdpr/consent-management-solution/ If you want to opt-out, you need to use the tiny "show purposes" button. http://acdn.origin.appnexus.net/cmp/docs/#/basic/show http://acdn.origin.appnexus.net/cmp/docs/#/basic/show Click "execute" for the example. Want to opt-out? Click the "learn more" button, and then you'll need to disable about 1,000 options. They might as well just make personalized advertising illegal. It's pretty clear 95%+ of people don't want to be tracked this way. However, these consent management solutions are saying 70-80% of people are accepting. This is happening because people are being tricked or forced into agreeing. Why are we rewarding businesses that choose to use this kind of behavior and punishing honest ones? Why are we turning internet browsing into an annoying experience filled with popups that are a minefield to navigate?
  - simonbarker87 8y ago
    > Why are we turning internet browsing into an annoying experience filled with popups that are a minefield to navigate? Honestly, because it works if you are targeting a specific niche. The problem with large, generic platforms such as Google and Facebook is that there is no typical demographic, so without knowing who people are it is difficult to point advertising at the most suitable demographic. In the old print days you knew the reader of a car magazine was into cars and the reader of a caravaning magazine was most likely a middle aged couple who were fairly well off and receptive to more expensive lifestyle upgrade goods. If we could find a way to segment like this without tracking that would be great but while everyone uses these large, monolithic, caters for all platforms, it’s really hard, without tracking, to know who you are advertising to. I find retargetting creepy and annoying but I like targeted, informative ads that are relevant to my interests. There is a balance to be found here that walks the line between useful and effective and creepy and annoying. Oh and the cynic in me thinks that the 7 years of ineffective cookie law pop ups was just training people to accept them for GDPR now that they mean a bit more.

Apparently neither is The Verge, having a fixed footer popup with the only option being "I Accept" doesn't comply with the guidelines

by kikki 8y ago

Apparently neither is The Verge, having a fixed footer popup with the only option being "I Accept" doesn't comply with the guidelines

nwellnhof 8y ago

Well, you have the option to leave their website. It's still unclear to me whether this violates the GDPR. Art. 7 (4) of the GDPR says: > When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. You don't enter a contract when visiting a news site.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

davidhyde 8y ago

The cookie law was flawed from the beginning because it allowed companies an opt-out mechanism (which we see via these cookie banners). This is even the case if the user does not consent. A company cannot force or even ask a user to opt out of GDPR so, unless a company misreads the law, we won't be seeing useless GDPR banners.

anewhnaccount2 8y ago

I believe it's the ePrivacy regulation rather than the GDPR that applies here. It's my understanding that you no longer need permission for certain usages of cookies where they're needed for certain functionality, such as shopping carts - and possibly some degree of tracking -- perhaps -- if some or all of the following are done: * The data isn't retained for too long * IP addresses are anonymised * Session cookies or cookies with a near future expiration date are used * First party cookies are used What exactly you need to do is not always totally clear, but usually the balancing test works like "is it required for legitimate business purposes that the user is likely to expect". If they don't need permission at all, then they're free to ask away. (Although it does show that people have failed to understand these changes in the law.)

simonbarker87 8y ago

It complies so long as: 1. Tracking is not enabled until you click it and 2. You can still use the core functionality of the site without accepting So long as you can still read the website around the pop up and they don’t activate tracking until you accept it then they are in the clear. The banner can be annoying as it wants as well.

Guest9812398 8y ago
Yep, this is right. You can technically use the service without giving consent, so it meets the guidelines. However, the Verge will make that consent box as annoying as possible to encourage you into accepting. Oh, you don't want half of your screen blocked? Well, just click this simple button and sign away your soul. All the big companies are doing something similar. If you want to be an honest publisher and follow the laws, you can have a clearly written consent box that lets users accept or decline. However, you'll see 95% of people decline, and take a big hit on your revenue while your competitors prosper. What are we really accomplishing? We're just going to have popups on every site, that do their best into tricking users into accepting. Do you want to see other examples of consent management solutions that will be appearing soon? https://www.quantcast.com/gdpr/consent-management-solution/ https://www.quantcast.com/gdpr/consent-management-solution/ If you want to opt-out, you need to use the tiny "show purposes" button. http://acdn.origin.appnexus.net/cmp/docs/#/basic/show http://acdn.origin.appnexus.net/cmp/docs/#/basic/show Click "execute" for the example. Want to opt-out? Click the "learn more" button, and then you'll need to disable about 1,000 options. They might as well just make personalized advertising illegal. It's pretty clear 95%+ of people don't want to be tracked this way. However, these consent management solutions are saying 70-80% of people are accepting. This is happening because people are being tricked or forced into agreeing. Why are we rewarding businesses that choose to use this kind of behavior and punishing honest ones? Why are we turning internet browsing into an annoying experience filled with popups that are a minefield to navigate?
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  > Why are we turning internet browsing into an annoying experience filled with popups that are a minefield to navigate? Honestly, because it works if you are targeting a specific niche. The problem with large, generic platforms such as Google and Facebook is that there is no typical demographic, so without knowing who people are it is difficult to point advertising at the most suitable demographic. In the old print days you knew the reader of a car magazine was into cars and the reader of a caravaning magazine was most likely a middle aged couple who were fairly well off and receptive to more expensive lifestyle upgrade goods. If we could find a way to segment like this without tracking that would be great but while everyone uses these large, monolithic, caters for all platforms, it’s really hard, without tracking, to know who you are advertising to. I find retargetting creepy and annoying but I like targeted, informative ads that are relevant to my interests. There is a balance to be found here that walks the line between useful and effective and creepy and annoying. Oh and the cynic in me thinks that the 7 years of ineffective cookie law pop ups was just training people to accept them for GDPR now that they mean a bit more.