3 ms·

I agree that this would put basically any service in existence into non-compliance. As a user, I do agree that a "blanket opt in" button/ default checked check

I agree that this would put basically any service in existence into non-compliance. As a user, I do agree that a "blanket opt in" button/ default checked checkbox is so pointless that it could as well be left out. A EASILY DIGESTIBLE page explaining what data is stored and how it is used , with an agree button at the end (and separate opt-in for different sets of data/functionality) should be mandatory. Emphasis on the easily digestible, because we all know that the "terms and contions" pages out there are constructed to be as obtuse and uninformative as possible to make users just skip them.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> I agree that this would screw over basically all services in existence. So, the market is so skewed that that is how presumably somewhat informed people perceive it? I mean, I would think it is just obvious bullshit. There are plenty of businesses that sell you a service for money, and that is all they do, and this kind of regulation has exactly zero impact on them. The only problem is that they have to compete with others who simply mistreat their customers in order to be able to ask for less money--so it's about time that a level playing field is restored where it's obvious that anti-asshole regulation does not impact everyone.
- the_duke 8y ago
  I was just referring to the way information is currently presented on most websites. I did not mean businesses would become unviable, just that everyone needs to change the way they present GDPR relevant information.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    But that is exactly the bullshit that I was referring to! No, if you haven't mistreated your customers before, there is no need to change anything, and there are plenty of businesses that haven't. There was never any necessity to spy on your customers, and thus there obviously is also no necessity to get consent for the spying that you are not doing in the first place.
    - the_duke 8y ago
      I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with spying or misreading customers. As a customer, I want to know what data a service stores and how it is used, without digging through pages of cryptic terms and services. Informed consent is the keyword here. Plenty of paid services share their data with third parties.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > As a customer, I want to know what data a service stores and how it is used, without digging through pages of cryptic terms and services. As a customer, I simply want my data to not be stored at all, unless I explicitly asked for it, in which case the consent is obviously implied. > Plenty of paid services share their data with third parties. And plenty of paid services don't. And those don't have to change anything. That's my point.
        tzs 8y ago
        Consider a site that sells digital goods for download. They need to store information that provides evidence of your physical location, such as IP address [1], in order to satisfy tax authorities that they collected the right jurisdiction's VAT or sales tax. I doubt that you are going to explicitly ask sites to store your IP address, so how do you think that should be handled? [1] IP address alone doesn't prove location, but it is evidence. The EU, for example, for requires for internet sales that you justify your choice of whose VAT to collect by providing two non-contradictory pieces of evidence for the location you chose. IP address can be one of those pieces. Billing address of the card used for the purchase can be another, and for most people that and IP address is enough.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        That is an entirely different matter than what this decision is about? I would think this probably doesn't even need explicit consent, as it is stored in order to fulfill a legal obligation that results from the sales contract. Now, maybe it would be preferable to ask for permission in those cases as well (just put a checkbox in the order form?), but my point (though maybe not stated clearly enough) was not that I expect only data to be stored when I explicitly ask for it for be stored, but that it is only stored when I explicitly ask for something that necessarily requires the data to be stored. So, if I order some digital goods, it might be required that the shop stores my IP address, so that's probably OK. But my point is that that does not include the permission to use it for anything other than fulfilling the legal obligation, and most certainly not to also store my navigation behavior on their website, or to keep it once they don't need it for tax purposes anymore.
tomjen3 8y ago
Honestly at most 10% of the sites that I have seen allow you to opt-out with a single click, whereas basically all of them allow you to out-in. Some don't allow you to browse the site without accepting. We need some general browser based auto script, so that websites don't get to ask, something like a do not track header, but one that was legally binding. Until then I click accept on all the sites that I use on my phone, they can set all the cookies they want, as I use Firefox Sync, which erase all data whenever you press back or close the browser.
- MayeulC 8y ago
  I use a firefor add-on[1], which works for the Quantcast banners (adds a "I refuse" button), but would definitely like something that works equally well for all websites, or that websites fix it themselves. Maybe even better, if they could simply follow the DNT flag, or not track their users in the first place. I worry that accepting cookies once, for one of these sites, will lead them to try and de-anonymize you, maybe even across private browsing windows, or different sessions. If you give them the right to basically fingerprint you, be assured that they will abuse it. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qookiefix https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qookiefix
alkonaut 8y ago
It should be a very simple requirement that whatever the way is to “agree to collection and enter site” must not be simpler or more prominent than the action required to NOT agree to non essential collection and still enter. That is, no more “agree and continue” that isn’t accompanied by an equally prominent “continue without tracking”.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> I agree that this would screw over basically all services in existence. So, the market is so skewed that that is how presumably somewhat informed people perceive it? I mean, I would think it is just obvious bullshit. There are plenty of businesses that sell you a service for money, and that is all they do, and this kind of regulation has exactly zero impact on them. The only problem is that they have to compete with others who simply mistreat their customers in order to be able to ask for less money--so it's about time that a level playing field is restored where it's obvious that anti-asshole regulation does not impact everyone.

the_duke 8y ago
I was just referring to the way information is currently presented on most websites. I did not mean businesses would become unviable, just that everyone needs to change the way they present GDPR relevant information.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  But that is exactly the bullshit that I was referring to! No, if you haven't mistreated your customers before, there is no need to change anything, and there are plenty of businesses that haven't. There was never any necessity to spy on your customers, and thus there obviously is also no necessity to get consent for the spying that you are not doing in the first place.
  - the_duke 8y ago
    I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with spying or misreading customers. As a customer, I want to know what data a service stores and how it is used, without digging through pages of cryptic terms and services. Informed consent is the keyword here. Plenty of paid services share their data with third parties.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > As a customer, I want to know what data a service stores and how it is used, without digging through pages of cryptic terms and services. As a customer, I simply want my data to not be stored at all, unless I explicitly asked for it, in which case the consent is obviously implied. > Plenty of paid services share their data with third parties. And plenty of paid services don't. And those don't have to change anything. That's my point.
      - tzs 8y ago
        Consider a site that sells digital goods for download. They need to store information that provides evidence of your physical location, such as IP address [1], in order to satisfy tax authorities that they collected the right jurisdiction's VAT or sales tax. I doubt that you are going to explicitly ask sites to store your IP address, so how do you think that should be handled? [1] IP address alone doesn't prove location, but it is evidence. The EU, for example, for requires for internet sales that you justify your choice of whose VAT to collect by providing two non-contradictory pieces of evidence for the location you chose. IP address can be one of those pieces. Billing address of the card used for the purchase can be another, and for most people that and IP address is enough.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        That is an entirely different matter than what this decision is about? I would think this probably doesn't even need explicit consent, as it is stored in order to fulfill a legal obligation that results from the sales contract. Now, maybe it would be preferable to ask for permission in those cases as well (just put a checkbox in the order form?), but my point (though maybe not stated clearly enough) was not that I expect only data to be stored when I explicitly ask for it for be stored, but that it is only stored when I explicitly ask for something that necessarily requires the data to be stored. So, if I order some digital goods, it might be required that the shop stores my IP address, so that's probably OK. But my point is that that does not include the permission to use it for anything other than fulfilling the legal obligation, and most certainly not to also store my navigation behavior on their website, or to keep it once they don't need it for tax purposes anymore.

tomjen3 8y ago

Honestly at most 10% of the sites that I have seen allow you to opt-out with a single click, whereas basically all of them allow you to out-in. Some don't allow you to browse the site without accepting. We need some general browser based auto script, so that websites don't get to ask, something like a do not track header, but one that was legally binding. Until then I click accept on all the sites that I use on my phone, they can set all the cookies they want, as I use Firefox Sync, which erase all data whenever you press back or close the browser.

MayeulC 8y ago
I use a firefor add-on[1], which works for the Quantcast banners (adds a "I refuse" button), but would definitely like something that works equally well for all websites, or that websites fix it themselves. Maybe even better, if they could simply follow the DNT flag, or not track their users in the first place. I worry that accepting cookies once, for one of these sites, will lead them to try and de-anonymize you, maybe even across private browsing windows, or different sessions. If you give them the right to basically fingerprint you, be assured that they will abuse it. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qookiefix https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qookiefix

alkonaut 8y ago

It should be a very simple requirement that whatever the way is to “agree to collection and enter site” must not be simpler or more prominent than the action required to NOT agree to non essential collection and still enter. That is, no more “agree and continue” that isn’t accompanied by an equally prominent “continue without tracking”.