6 ms·

I see the same behavior (v52.8.0). Damn. Also, from a German IPv4: > The new European data protection law requires us to inform you of the following before yo

I see the same behavior (v52.8.0). Damn. Also, from a German IPv4: > The new European data protection law requires us to inform you of the following before you use our website: > We use cookies and other technologies to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests. By clicking “I agree” below, you consent to the use by us and our third-party partners of cookies and data gathered from your use of our platforms. See our Privacy Policy and Third Party Partners to learn more about the use of data and your rights. You also agree to our Terms of Service. But "Continue to site" doesn't work unless I check "I agree". So they're clearly not GDPR-compliant. In order to access their site, you must agree to be tracked. And you must also disable protection against tracking. Maybe there will be complaints filed?

x0x0 8y ago
There is also this https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/? where the Post offers a free sub, a basic sub (requiring consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us), and a Premium EU ad-free sub (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking).
- mirimir 8y ago
  No, choosing "free" prompts the agreement to track prompt. And you must agree in order to proceed.
  - jasonlotito 8y ago
    They are referring to the "Premium EU Ad-Free Subscription" option where they explicitly call out "No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking"
- Rjevski 8y ago
  > (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking) The premium subscription still asks you to agree to their privacy policy and use of analytics, ads & tracking.
ralfd 8y ago
Does GDPR compliance require a site to work if a user is not agreeing to be tracked? Functionally the user never clicking the agree button and not be able to access the site is equivalent to what the latimes is doing: http://latimes.com http://latimes.com http://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ http://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ > "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."
- x0x0 8y ago
  I tend to think it's not compliant, but given there is a complete opt out (that does cost money), and the Post is, by its nature, very US oriented, I think it's unlikely to be a priority for regulators. What is the loss to a European of being unable to read the post?
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    They cover stuff outside the US, and people link to it. For example, this HN front-page article from a couple of days ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/10/09/this-new-food-museum-expects-to-upset-your-stomach-and-then-make-you-think-about-why/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/10/0...
- mikekchar 8y ago
  They can't offer to give you access in exchange for consent to use your data. By not granting access at all, they are complying with the GDPR. However, as always, it's important to point out that you don't ever have to ask for consent with the GDRP. If the data you are gathering necessary in order to complete the service, then people can't even object to it. If the data you are gathering is a legitimate interest (for marketing, or whatever), then you don't have to ask for permission, you just have to allow people to object after the fact. It's only if you don't technically need the data to do the job and you have no legitimate interest in the data that you have to ask for consent. Not to put too fine a point on it, if they have no need for the data and they have no legitimate interest in it and they don't even want to ask for your consent... do you really want to go to that site? It's pretty clear what they think of you.
marmaduke 8y ago
Maybe you will appreciate NPR, https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/ https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org... which provides a plain text site alternative
makomk 8y ago
There's been no GDPR enforcement so far and it seems to have basically failed. All it's done has kill off a bunch of smaller websites, games, etc that aren't making enough money to justify the risk of being found noncompliant, whilst the big companies whose business models rely on tracking people have carried on regardless.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  I think it's too soon to say it failed. A few high profile cases need to be fought before that is settled. This is a typical example of an extremely high profile company that is very blatanly in violation. So it should be the perfect fit for a legal battle.
- foepys 8y ago
  > There's been no GDPR enforcement so far and it seems to have basically failed. Bold statement considering that it's been only 4.5 months since it came into effect. All government investigations take longer than quick business decisions.
- orf 8y ago
  Not really, I've sent a large number of GDPR erasure requests and they have all been acted on promptly. That's cool. The point of the legislation is not to slam the book down and start fining everyone left right and center practically the moment it came into effect. It's a complex regulation and the regulators are sensible, so don't expect any action to be taken for at least a couple of years. If you're working towards compliance that's OK for now.

x0x0 8y ago

There is also this https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/? where the Post offers a free sub, a basic sub (requiring consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us), and a Premium EU ad-free sub (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking).

mirimir 8y ago
No, choosing "free" prompts the agreement to track prompt. And you must agree in order to proceed.
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  They are referring to the "Premium EU Ad-Free Subscription" option where they explicitly call out "No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking"
Rjevski 8y ago
> (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking) The premium subscription still asks you to agree to their privacy policy and use of analytics, ads & tracking.

ralfd 8y ago

Does GDPR compliance require a site to work if a user is not agreeing to be tracked? Functionally the user never clicking the agree button and not be able to access the site is equivalent to what the latimes is doing: http://latimes.com http://latimes.com http://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ http://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ > "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."

x0x0 8y ago
I tend to think it's not compliant, but given there is a complete opt out (that does cost money), and the Post is, by its nature, very US oriented, I think it's unlikely to be a priority for regulators. What is the loss to a European of being unable to read the post?
- robin_reala 8y ago
  They cover stuff outside the US, and people link to it. For example, this HN front-page article from a couple of days ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/10/09/this-new-food-museum-expects-to-upset-your-stomach-and-then-make-you-think-about-why/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/10/0...
mikekchar 8y ago
They can't offer to give you access in exchange for consent to use your data. By not granting access at all, they are complying with the GDPR. However, as always, it's important to point out that you don't ever have to ask for consent with the GDRP. If the data you are gathering necessary in order to complete the service, then people can't even object to it. If the data you are gathering is a legitimate interest (for marketing, or whatever), then you don't have to ask for permission, you just have to allow people to object after the fact. It's only if you don't technically need the data to do the job and you have no legitimate interest in the data that you have to ask for consent. Not to put too fine a point on it, if they have no need for the data and they have no legitimate interest in it and they don't even want to ask for your consent... do you really want to go to that site? It's pretty clear what they think of you.

marmaduke 8y ago

Maybe you will appreciate NPR, https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/ https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org... which provides a plain text site alternative

makomk 8y ago

There's been no GDPR enforcement so far and it seems to have basically failed. All it's done has kill off a bunch of smaller websites, games, etc that aren't making enough money to justify the risk of being found noncompliant, whilst the big companies whose business models rely on tracking people have carried on regardless.

alkonaut 8y ago
I think it's too soon to say it failed. A few high profile cases need to be fought before that is settled. This is a typical example of an extremely high profile company that is very blatanly in violation. So it should be the perfect fit for a legal battle.
foepys 8y ago
> There's been no GDPR enforcement so far and it seems to have basically failed. Bold statement considering that it's been only 4.5 months since it came into effect. All government investigations take longer than quick business decisions.
orf 8y ago
Not really, I've sent a large number of GDPR erasure requests and they have all been acted on promptly. That's cool. The point of the legislation is not to slam the book down and start fining everyone left right and center practically the moment it came into effect. It's a complex regulation and the regulators are sensible, so don't expect any action to be taken for at least a couple of years. If you're working towards compliance that's OK for now.