4 ms·

As an european, I don't see it as breaking GDPR but as respecting it actually.

blub 7y ago
Making free content accessible on the condition of having one's privacy violated most definitely doesn't respect the intent of the law. A site that would respect the GDPR would either offer a no-tracking page like NPR, allow access only to paying users, or forbid access period.
- izacus 7y ago
  It's pretty much what Google does isn't it? There's the irony :)
  - blub 7y ago
    Google's mostly ignoring or working around the law. They already got fined. But I was referring to WaPo, not Google.
- pkaye 7y ago
  So is seems they are taking the third option and forbidding access to GPDR countries?
  - blub 7y ago
    Who's they? WaPo, which I was referring to does not. I just checked and they even differentiate between paying less with some tracking and paying more for no tracking.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > offer a no-tracking page like NPR Merely doing this is not sufficient for GDPR compliance. The site also needs to be able to verify that they are not collecting and storing personal data beyond what is necessary to operate the site, and have the mechanisms in place to respond as such to regulators when they inquire. That's not free (in time or money), and some organizations have decided it isn't worth their while. > allow access only to paying users Free vs. paid is completely irrelevant to the GDPR. > forbid access period As someone else noted, that's what they are doing.
  - blub 7y ago
    If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money. WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. You think it's dead easy to respond to inquiries. What matters is what the regulators will believe. Also, there's a lot of potential personal data involved in a web page hit that does not require any sort of tracker to obtain. > Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money. That has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That is just your assumption that if you pay for something you won't be tracked. That's a bad assumption. > WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking. Please point out where in the GDPR it refers to the cost of a service as having any relevance to a user's privacy rights. As with the above, you are making a whole lot of assumptions that aren't related to the law.

blub 7y ago

Making free content accessible on the condition of having one's privacy violated most definitely doesn't respect the intent of the law. A site that would respect the GDPR would either offer a no-tracking page like NPR, allow access only to paying users, or forbid access period.

izacus 7y ago
It's pretty much what Google does isn't it? There's the irony :)
- blub 7y ago
  Google's mostly ignoring or working around the law. They already got fined. But I was referring to WaPo, not Google.
pkaye 7y ago
So is seems they are taking the third option and forbidding access to GPDR countries?
- blub 7y ago
  Who's they? WaPo, which I was referring to does not. I just checked and they even differentiate between paying less with some tracking and paying more for no tracking.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> offer a no-tracking page like NPR Merely doing this is not sufficient for GDPR compliance. The site also needs to be able to verify that they are not collecting and storing personal data beyond what is necessary to operate the site, and have the mechanisms in place to respond as such to regulators when they inquire. That's not free (in time or money), and some organizations have decided it isn't worth their while. > allow access only to paying users Free vs. paid is completely irrelevant to the GDPR. > forbid access period As someone else noted, that's what they are doing.
- blub 7y ago
  If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money. WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > If the NPR is not doing tracking, it's dead easy to respond to anyone's inquiries. You think it's dead easy to respond to inquiries. What matters is what the regulators will believe. Also, there's a lot of potential personal data involved in a web page hit that does not require any sort of tracker to obtain. > Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money. That has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That is just your assumption that if you pay for something you won't be tracked. That's a bad assumption. > WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking. Please point out where in the GDPR it refers to the cost of a service as having any relevance to a user's privacy rights. As with the above, you are making a whole lot of assumptions that aren't related to the law.