4 ms·

And the buttons and popups required to browse those websites has doubled. With the euro websites - it's gotten to the point where you could put anything in tho

And the buttons and popups required to browse those websites has doubled. With the euro websites - it's gotten to the point where you could put anything in those terms, and folks would accept them - they are so used to just clicking through to read things.

zaarn 8y ago
Well, legally speaking you can't. Anything but boilerplate ToS or agreement terms would be thrown out in any sensible court. And folks do read them at times and click "I don't want tracking".
- privateSFacct 8y ago
  Then why even bother with terms if nothing matters? Oh right - because at least in the US it DOES matter. Courts have upheld some key elements of these. For example, a court ruled that "employee had the apparent authority to bind his employer to a clickwrap agreement simply because the company had provided him with a computer and the Internet access." Are you following this? Arbitration agreement, prohibitions on patent litigation, sharing your data widely as a condition of accessing a website all have been upheld based on "I Agree" clicks.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    You bother because even the Boilerplate is still legally valid and boilerplate does include sharing data with 3rd parties for most courts. Point being is that you can't just do what you want in the ToS. You have to include some form of boilerplate, ie, no surprising / only standard terms of usage.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
394549 8y ago
> And the buttons and popups required to browse those websites has doubled. I'd blame those websites for that, since they're the ones who made the decision to track you regardless of how bad it made their UX. Remember: all they need to do to get rid of those buttons and popups is to respect your privacy by default.
Nurw 8y ago
If the popups were actually following GDPR then people wouldn't accept. But 90% of these popups are not. It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in, and it is my firm belief that if this was implemented a lot more people would probably opt out. Oh well, the fines will hopefully start rolling out and maybe we get less asshole design.
- helthanatos 8y ago
  >It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in The opt-out being leaving the site. Fines to companies outside the EU are probably going to be fruitless.
- mrep 8y ago
  > It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in Can you point to which article of the 99 [0] that you are referring to because I have heard this claim multiple times and yet I cannot seem to find it on my own. [0]: https://gdpr-info.eu/ https://gdpr-info.eu/
  - kruczek 8y ago
    The most "clearly stated" is I think the following: > Art. 7, paragraph 3: "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent." Although it sounds like this is about withdrawing previously given consent, not rejecting the request for consent at all. > Recital 32: "If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided." Perhaps it could be argued that having to click through multiple menus to reject the request is not concise and is disruptive to the use of the service? > Recital 42: "In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms." Again, I'd argue that having to click through multiple menus isn't exactly "easily accessible form".
- privateSFacct 8y ago

zaarn 8y ago

Well, legally speaking you can't. Anything but boilerplate ToS or agreement terms would be thrown out in any sensible court. And folks do read them at times and click "I don't want tracking".

privateSFacct 8y ago
Then why even bother with terms if nothing matters? Oh right - because at least in the US it DOES matter. Courts have upheld some key elements of these. For example, a court ruled that "employee had the apparent authority to bind his employer to a clickwrap agreement simply because the company had provided him with a computer and the Internet access." Are you following this? Arbitration agreement, prohibitions on patent litigation, sharing your data widely as a condition of accessing a website all have been upheld based on "I Agree" clicks.
- zaarn 8y ago
  You bother because even the Boilerplate is still legally valid and boilerplate does include sharing data with 3rd parties for most courts. Point being is that you can't just do what you want in the ToS. You have to include some form of boilerplate, ie, no surprising / only standard terms of usage.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

394549 8y ago

> And the buttons and popups required to browse those websites has doubled. I'd blame those websites for that, since they're the ones who made the decision to track you regardless of how bad it made their UX. Remember: all they need to do to get rid of those buttons and popups is to respect your privacy by default.

Nurw 8y ago

If the popups were actually following GDPR then people wouldn't accept. But 90% of these popups are not. It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in, and it is my firm belief that if this was implemented a lot more people would probably opt out. Oh well, the fines will hopefully start rolling out and maybe we get less asshole design.

helthanatos 8y ago
>It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in The opt-out being leaving the site. Fines to companies outside the EU are probably going to be fruitless.
mrep 8y ago
> It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in Can you point to which article of the 99 [0] that you are referring to because I have heard this claim multiple times and yet I cannot seem to find it on my own. [0]: https://gdpr-info.eu/ https://gdpr-info.eu/
- kruczek 8y ago
  The most "clearly stated" is I think the following: > Art. 7, paragraph 3: "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent." Although it sounds like this is about withdrawing previously given consent, not rejecting the request for consent at all. > Recital 32: "If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided." Perhaps it could be argued that having to click through multiple menus to reject the request is not concise and is disruptive to the use of the service? > Recital 42: "In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms." Again, I'd argue that having to click through multiple menus isn't exactly "easily accessible form".
privateSFacct 8y ago