4 ms·

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

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.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Are you seeing the same what I'm seeing? If I go to the quantcast link and press 'show purposes', everything is deselected by default as it should be, and if I click 'Save' there then I proceed without having opted in to anything. Sure, the "show purposes" button to refuse is misleading and should be changed, but the 1000 options screen is fine, at least for me.
  - Guest9812398 8y ago
    Everything is deselected IF you click the "show purposes" button. If you visit the page and click what appears to be the only option, "I agree", then you're opted-in for everything. Why doesn't the page have two equal size buttons, "I agree" and "I disagree"? We all know why. It's about intentionally misleading users into agreeing. This isn't fine, and it defeats the entire purpose of these regulations.
- flukus 8y ago
  > 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. To be compliant they would have to leave that half a screen blocked with a simple button to opt out again.
PeterisP 8y ago
Can I revoke that consent after I gave it as easily as I made it? It seems not, this would be a violation next week. Article 7, part 3.4 "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent." is as literally clear as it can get - not possible to withdraw consent, not easy to withdraw consent, but as easy. Counting clicks required and the size of font used for links are likely to be used as criteria. Their current privacy policy and cookie policy linked there doesn't mention how can I withdraw this consent, so it violates the information requirement of Article 12. It does mention that browsers can be used to block cookies (which violates the "as easy" part) but says nothing about the ".. and other tracking technologies." sentence of their "consent" window. Futhermore, a popup window that occupies half of my phone's screen is intrusive. It's not sufficient to, as you say, "You can still use the core functionality of the site without accepting" - Recital 32 (https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/) states "the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.", so it seems that this request may violate the requirements.
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  To be fair I am yet to see any implementation of giving consent that enables people to revoke it as easily. There should be a link in the privacy policy that revoked access with a click for whatever tracking platform the site is using, without having another bar that hovers all the time with those links in I doubt you will find easier than that.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    This is generally not a problem for any genuinely opt-in features - I went to a particular place to opt-in because I wanted to, and I can go to the same place to opt-out afterwards. It's a bit different in situations where I don't really want it but the service provider does; but these are the intended target of this legislation. One could argue that this is a useful criteria for UI evaluation - if the site feels that it's unreasonable to dangle a banner "Opt-out of tracking NOW!!!" to everyone forever, then perhaps it should be considered exactly just as unreasonable to dangle an identical banner "Opt-in to tracking NOW!!!" in front of everybody until they accept. If you don't want to do the opt-out banner, then you could be forbidden to show the opt-in banner. So even a very literal interpretation of this may make some sense.
taysic 8y ago
You are supposed to offer access to your service 'without detriment'. A popup that you cannot close blocking half the page sounds like 'detriment' to me. Also you need a clear way to say no.

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.
PeterisP 8y ago
Are you seeing the same what I'm seeing? If I go to the quantcast link and press 'show purposes', everything is deselected by default as it should be, and if I click 'Save' there then I proceed without having opted in to anything. Sure, the "show purposes" button to refuse is misleading and should be changed, but the 1000 options screen is fine, at least for me.
- Guest9812398 8y ago
  Everything is deselected IF you click the "show purposes" button. If you visit the page and click what appears to be the only option, "I agree", then you're opted-in for everything. Why doesn't the page have two equal size buttons, "I agree" and "I disagree"? We all know why. It's about intentionally misleading users into agreeing. This isn't fine, and it defeats the entire purpose of these regulations.
flukus 8y ago
> 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. To be compliant they would have to leave that half a screen blocked with a simple button to opt out again.

PeterisP 8y ago

Can I revoke that consent after I gave it as easily as I made it? It seems not, this would be a violation next week. Article 7, part 3.4 "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent." is as literally clear as it can get - not possible to withdraw consent, not easy to withdraw consent, but as easy. Counting clicks required and the size of font used for links are likely to be used as criteria. Their current privacy policy and cookie policy linked there doesn't mention how can I withdraw this consent, so it violates the information requirement of Article 12. It does mention that browsers can be used to block cookies (which violates the "as easy" part) but says nothing about the ".. and other tracking technologies." sentence of their "consent" window. Futhermore, a popup window that occupies half of my phone's screen is intrusive. It's not sufficient to, as you say, "You can still use the core functionality of the site without accepting" - Recital 32 (https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-32/) states "the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.", so it seems that this request may violate the requirements.

simonbarker87 8y ago
To be fair I am yet to see any implementation of giving consent that enables people to revoke it as easily. There should be a link in the privacy policy that revoked access with a click for whatever tracking platform the site is using, without having another bar that hovers all the time with those links in I doubt you will find easier than that.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  This is generally not a problem for any genuinely opt-in features - I went to a particular place to opt-in because I wanted to, and I can go to the same place to opt-out afterwards. It's a bit different in situations where I don't really want it but the service provider does; but these are the intended target of this legislation. One could argue that this is a useful criteria for UI evaluation - if the site feels that it's unreasonable to dangle a banner "Opt-out of tracking NOW!!!" to everyone forever, then perhaps it should be considered exactly just as unreasonable to dangle an identical banner "Opt-in to tracking NOW!!!" in front of everybody until they accept. If you don't want to do the opt-out banner, then you could be forbidden to show the opt-in banner. So even a very literal interpretation of this may make some sense.

taysic 8y ago

You are supposed to offer access to your service 'without detriment'. A popup that you cannot close blocking half the page sounds like 'detriment' to me. Also you need a clear way to say no.