5 ms·

illegal?

by _ZeD_ 8y ago

illegal?

scrollaway 8y ago
The wall needs a clear and visible opt out, as readily-accessible as the accept button. Instead, Slate redirects you to their privacy page. Their privacy page itself redirects you to https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners ... which is behind the GDPR wall. And once you get behind the wall, it's a list of dozens of links, with individual opt-out from each service, on separate pages, separate domains. In other words, you are forced to give consent before you are graciously told how to withdraw it from each individual advertising partners. You don't have a way to not give Slate themselves consent. Yeah, it's illegal.
- skrebbel 8y ago
  , in some parts of the world.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    Please do reply to every single post mentioning the word "illegal" with "in some parts of the world". After all, nearly anything goes in international waters.
    - skrebbel 8y ago
      Fair enough, you're right.
      - aaron695 8y ago
        No they aren't. EU is 500 million people. The rest of the world is 7.2 billion almost all not living in international waters. Your point was fair, this complex law that applies to the (rich) few, affects many. It's clear what you meant.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  It's not illegal. If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    See mattlondon's comment: > Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given. > "This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service" > Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what2 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
    - ElBarto 8y ago
      That's always misunderstood. A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment. The GDPR does not change that at all. What you quoted refers to specific contract terms as exemplified in the link provided. Edit: I wish people understood GDPR instead of acting childishly by downvoting...
      - akvadrako 8y ago
        You are wrong, as has been explained to you above. I laid out the argument in more detail a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 Basically, you need consent to use tracking and consent isn't legal unless it's optional and independent. So it can't be tied to access.
        ElBarto 8y ago
        No, I'm not wrong. The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access. What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.
- crysin 8y ago
  It's only illegal if the EU enforces it, really, and it seems that the EU has no motivation to act on these obvious violators. It's been 4 months, and this violation is one of the most obvious and easily fine-able violations and yet nothings changed. Companies aren't scared, no one is doing anything differently, so until the EU actually proves they're interested in enforcing the text of the GDPR companies are going to continue acting like they're not in danger.

illegal?

by _ZeD_ 8y ago

illegal?

The wall needs a clear and visible opt out, as readily-accessible as the accept button. Instead, Slate redirects you to their privacy page. Their privacy page itself redirects you to https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners ... which is behind the GDPR wall. And once you get behind the wall, it's a list of dozens of links, with individual opt-out from each service, on separate pages, separate domains. In other words, you are forced to give consent before you are graciously told how to withdraw it from each individual advertising partners. You don't have a way to not give Slate themselves consent. Yeah, it's illegal.

skrebbel 8y ago
, in some parts of the world.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  Please do reply to every single post mentioning the word "illegal" with "in some parts of the world". After all, nearly anything goes in international waters.
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    Fair enough, you're right.
    - aaron695 8y ago
      No they aren't. EU is 500 million people. The rest of the world is 7.2 billion almost all not living in international waters. Your point was fair, this complex law that applies to the (rich) few, affects many. It's clear what you meant.
ElBarto 8y ago
It's not illegal. If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.
- mirimir 8y ago
  See mattlondon's comment: > Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given. > "This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service" > Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what2 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    That's always misunderstood. A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment. The GDPR does not change that at all. What you quoted refers to specific contract terms as exemplified in the link provided. Edit: I wish people understood GDPR instead of acting childishly by downvoting...
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      You are wrong, as has been explained to you above. I laid out the argument in more detail a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 Basically, you need consent to use tracking and consent isn't legal unless it's optional and independent. So it can't be tied to access.
      - ElBarto 8y ago
        No, I'm not wrong. The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access. What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.
crysin 8y ago
It's only illegal if the EU enforces it, really, and it seems that the EU has no motivation to act on these obvious violators. It's been 4 months, and this violation is one of the most obvious and easily fine-able violations and yet nothings changed. Companies aren't scared, no one is doing anything differently, so until the EU actually proves they're interested in enforcing the text of the GDPR companies are going to continue acting like they're not in danger.