3 ms·

The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent. This means that if European privacy regulators agree that this approach does not in fact means that use

by phicoh 8y ago

The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent. This means that if European privacy regulators agree that this approach does not in fact means that users consented then Facebook/Google/Microsoft may be violating the GDPR. I think this is where, at least in theory, the GDPR is a major step forward: it has clear instructions on how information should be presented to users. Now we have to see if that theory actually becomes reality.

dalbasal 8y ago
The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent I've had this argument a couple of times and I think it comes down to the semantics, though legal and legislative semantics are a little richer than most. What I mean is that gdpr makes its intentions quite clear, but that's not how the legal system parses laws. What the consequences of gdpr are, in terms of practice is (1) all website visitors must sign a contract with the site owners (2) there are now some conventions and controls governing these contracts (3) the contracts empower the website owner to do most (not all) of what they could do before gdpr. Gdpr does quasi-explicitely force website operators to provide "i don't agree" option. There are two potential ambiguities that could nullify this: (1) the exceptions in gdpr are ambiguous enough that all sites/services can claim them (2) dark patterns described in this paper make it so that a majority of users consent anyway. IMO, considering "click here to agree and continue to the article" a valid consent is ridiculous. Contracts work when they are rare. We cannot solve this consent problem this way.
- phicoh 8y ago
  Contracts work fine if they are common. Suppose you are in a bar buying one drink at a time. Each time you buy a drink you enter a new contract. Is that a problem? No. The 'click here to agree and continue to the article' is a problem in the context of the GDPR because consent has to be given freely and cannot be a requirement to obtain a service. That's a big departure from the cookie law, where this kind of forced consent is allowed.
- tjoff 8y ago
  1) they really are not ambiguous at all in these cases, it is clear cut that these sites deliberately tries to get away with going directly against the law 2) these dark patterns are illegal, and they are illegal just because they do "force" users to consent

by phicoh 8y ago

dalbasal 8y ago

The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent I've had this argument a couple of times and I think it comes down to the semantics, though legal and legislative semantics are a little richer than most. What I mean is that gdpr makes its intentions quite clear, but that's not how the legal system parses laws. What the consequences of gdpr are, in terms of practice is (1) all website visitors must sign a contract with the site owners (2) there are now some conventions and controls governing these contracts (3) the contracts empower the website owner to do most (not all) of what they could do before gdpr. Gdpr does quasi-explicitely force website operators to provide "i don't agree" option. There are two potential ambiguities that could nullify this: (1) the exceptions in gdpr are ambiguous enough that all sites/services can claim them (2) dark patterns described in this paper make it so that a majority of users consent anyway. IMO, considering "click here to agree and continue to the article" a valid consent is ridiculous. Contracts work when they are rare. We cannot solve this consent problem this way.

phicoh 8y ago
Contracts work fine if they are common. Suppose you are in a bar buying one drink at a time. Each time you buy a drink you enter a new contract. Is that a problem? No. The 'click here to agree and continue to the article' is a problem in the context of the GDPR because consent has to be given freely and cannot be a requirement to obtain a service. That's a big departure from the cookie law, where this kind of forced consent is allowed.
tjoff 8y ago
1) they really are not ambiguous at all in these cases, it is clear cut that these sites deliberately tries to get away with going directly against the law 2) these dark patterns are illegal, and they are illegal just because they do "force" users to consent