4 ms·

Why not? It is perfectly reasonably to have two versions of a service - one with ads/cookies and one without. The user uses the one they want. If one consider

Why not? It is perfectly reasonably to have two versions of a service - one with ads/cookies and one without. The user uses the one they want. If one considers personal information as a currency, it is something one can choose to or not to pay. If the user's privacy is important enough to them, they won’t give the company the right to track them or do whatever else with their data. The user decides whether access to that service is worth paying the price in terms of privacy. I think Facebook is too expensive (in terms of my personal data they get) so I don’t use the service. But I cannot complain that FB doesn’t service me for nothing. It is a for-profit company. The company is not obligated to service everyone - it is not public transport or the electricity company.

Tomte 8y ago
We're not discussing what you think would be right and fair, we're discussing what the legislature decided to enact into law. You may argue against the GDPR, but it doesn't change the law as it stands today.
- alfredallan1 8y ago
  Where do you get the impression I am arguing against the GDPR? I quite support it in fact. The discussion was about whether the complaints of the type mentioned in the article are valid under the GDPR.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    You argue about what you think is „perfectly reasonable“. But that‘s not the question to ask when that is obviously illegal. You cannot counter „that‘s not allowed by the GDPR“ with „I think it should be“, unless you want to talk about a hypothetical alternative.
    - alfredallan1 8y ago
      Consider a company which offers two services - 1. Latest news stories with personalized ads on the side. 2. Just news stories. There is nothing illegal about having the above two lines of services. But when a user wants service no. 1, their personal data becomes neccessary to show personalized ads. If the user chooses to not “pay” in the curreny of personal data, it is perfectly fine, they can use service no. 2. Why is this illegal? Please, be specific with which part of the law prohibits this. Morally, ethically, I agree with you. 100%. I was in fact involved in a spread-the-word about GDPR campaign few months back. This discussion is about the legality and the technicality.
IshKebab 8y ago
If the personal information is not necessary you need explicit consent. > Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: > > 1. the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes; > > 2. processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; > > (there are a few more cases) Given that there is no contract for which the personal information is necessary when you view a news site, they have to ask for consent. Which is why they ask for consent. However: > Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement to the processing of personal data [...]. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance [...]. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. [...] the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided. I would say that this especially violates the last sentence. It is definitely unnecessarily disruptive. Unfortunately this is in a "Recital", not in the main text. I have no idea what that means but I expect we will have to wait for a court case to find out the real answer.

Tomte 8y ago

We're not discussing what you think would be right and fair, we're discussing what the legislature decided to enact into law. You may argue against the GDPR, but it doesn't change the law as it stands today.

alfredallan1 8y ago
Where do you get the impression I am arguing against the GDPR? I quite support it in fact. The discussion was about whether the complaints of the type mentioned in the article are valid under the GDPR.
- Tomte 8y ago
  You argue about what you think is „perfectly reasonable“. But that‘s not the question to ask when that is obviously illegal. You cannot counter „that‘s not allowed by the GDPR“ with „I think it should be“, unless you want to talk about a hypothetical alternative.
  - alfredallan1 8y ago
    Consider a company which offers two services - 1. Latest news stories with personalized ads on the side. 2. Just news stories. There is nothing illegal about having the above two lines of services. But when a user wants service no. 1, their personal data becomes neccessary to show personalized ads. If the user chooses to not “pay” in the curreny of personal data, it is perfectly fine, they can use service no. 2. Why is this illegal? Please, be specific with which part of the law prohibits this. Morally, ethically, I agree with you. 100%. I was in fact involved in a spread-the-word about GDPR campaign few months back. This discussion is about the legality and the technicality.

IshKebab 8y ago

If the personal information is not necessary you need explicit consent. > Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: > > 1. the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes; > > 2. processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; > > (there are a few more cases) Given that there is no contract for which the personal information is necessary when you view a news site, they have to ask for consent. Which is why they ask for consent. However: > Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement to the processing of personal data [...]. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance [...]. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. [...] the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided. I would say that this especially violates the last sentence. It is definitely unnecessarily disruptive. Unfortunately this is in a "Recital", not in the main text. I have no idea what that means but I expect we will have to wait for a court case to find out the real answer.