3 ms·

What I don't get, isn't GDPR supposed to make tracking opt-in? While most sites just give you the option to opt-out now! Isn't that a violation of GDPR?

mattlondon 8y ago
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... Makes me a bit annoyed now to have to go through a consent-wall like this - I can only imagine the management pouring over the "consent data" as some sort of new marketing metric about how engaged their audience is etc etc
- BasementJack 8y ago
  This does not mean that a company has to offer free access to its contents if you refuse its terms. Those consent walls are the expected consequence of GDPR. People are given a real, free choice: Accept and access free contents or navigate away. There is no detriment and this is not a condition of sale. One can go further and argue that consent is indeed in fact required to provide the service since this is free contents financed by ads.
  - mattlondon 8y ago
    True, but you dont need to use full-spectrum tracking to serve ads. TV commercials dont use the same level of invasive tracking, yet they finance all sorts of content just fine.
    - BasementJack 8y ago
      That's quite irrelevant to the GDPR. If you finance your service through ads then consent is required because that's how your business works and ads are your income. If you sell books online then indeed consent is not required and you cannot make ordering books subject to consent.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    This is expressly the argument the GDPR forbids: The consent that the GDPR allows cannot be in exchange for anything (because then it is not completely free). (Also, this consent is not the only justification you can use under GDPR for tracking, it's just the easiest way to justify the intrusive tracking used by ad networks, because the other ways mean you have to actually describe why it's necessary).
    - BasementJack 8y ago
      No, the GDPR does not forbid this, as I wrote. The GDPR does not state that consent cannot be exchanged for anything. The GDPR will look at whether consent is necessary for the performance of a contract and/or provision of service. So the argument that this is allowed is two-fold: - this is free content made publicly available: There is no contract or provision of service. - this content is provided free thanks to ads: Consent is necessary to provide the contents. The GDPR is not meant to force companies to work for free and it does not force them to.

mattlondon 8y ago

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... Makes me a bit annoyed now to have to go through a consent-wall like this - I can only imagine the management pouring over the "consent data" as some sort of new marketing metric about how engaged their audience is etc etc

BasementJack 8y ago
This does not mean that a company has to offer free access to its contents if you refuse its terms. Those consent walls are the expected consequence of GDPR. People are given a real, free choice: Accept and access free contents or navigate away. There is no detriment and this is not a condition of sale. One can go further and argue that consent is indeed in fact required to provide the service since this is free contents financed by ads.
- mattlondon 8y ago
  True, but you dont need to use full-spectrum tracking to serve ads. TV commercials dont use the same level of invasive tracking, yet they finance all sorts of content just fine.
  - BasementJack 8y ago
    That's quite irrelevant to the GDPR. If you finance your service through ads then consent is required because that's how your business works and ads are your income. If you sell books online then indeed consent is not required and you cannot make ordering books subject to consent.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  This is expressly the argument the GDPR forbids: The consent that the GDPR allows cannot be in exchange for anything (because then it is not completely free). (Also, this consent is not the only justification you can use under GDPR for tracking, it's just the easiest way to justify the intrusive tracking used by ad networks, because the other ways mean you have to actually describe why it's necessary).
  - BasementJack 8y ago
    No, the GDPR does not forbid this, as I wrote. The GDPR does not state that consent cannot be exchanged for anything. The GDPR will look at whether consent is necessary for the performance of a contract and/or provision of service. So the argument that this is allowed is two-fold: - this is free content made publicly available: There is no contract or provision of service. - this content is provided free thanks to ads: Consent is necessary to provide the contents. The GDPR is not meant to force companies to work for free and it does not force them to.