6 ms·

> The group of European marketing firms said the pop-up warning and the limited ability to customize it still carries “a high risk of user refusal.” If you’re

> The group of European marketing firms said the pop-up warning and the limited ability to customize it still carries “a high risk of user refusal.” If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough.

csunbird 6y ago
I think what they mean is, they need finer controls on what data they would like to access and finer controls on informing what data are in use with the application.
- smichel17 6y ago
  As far as I can tell from the article, there is only a single piece of functionality behind this prompt -- access to the device's unique advertising ID. So, I'm not sure it can get any more granular than that. Quite literally the only functionality it enables is tracking a device across installs or apps.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
More importantly, that should be a sign that you know that you currently aren't obtaining informed consent, and should be thankful that Apple is saving you from the massive GDPR fines you should be getting (if only enforcement would actually happen).
- bad_user 6y ago
  These companies already know they aren't getting consent from users. GDPR's requirements are pretty clear in this regard and personalisation for advertising can't be a legitimate interest. Every business in the advertising community has seeked legal counseling regarding GDPR, make no mistake about it. They simply hope that they'll be ignored for long enough. > if only enforcement would actually happen It does happen. Maybe not as fast as people would like, investigations and lawsuits take a while, data protection authorities are probably understaffed. Google was fined multiple times already — and they might take this as the cost of doing business, but sooner or later they will be hit with that maximum 4% of global profits if they don't adapt and they are adapting.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    GDPR is over two years old now, and most major web sites are still showing non-compliant dialogs and sharing your data with dozens of trackers. Have there been any fines against either the web sites or the ad/tracking services they use? (IIRC the Google fines were for Android, not ads/web site tracking).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
floatrock 6y ago
> Apple will give them a choice soon enough. And hopefully one not reliant on so many dark patterns. The OneTrust opt-outs are the worst (and don't even work! which must be against the california consumer privacy act). On my iphone in safari: say I'm cooking dinner and go to epicurious.com. Greeted with the now-standard opt-out banner at the bottom. 1. Click the "Do not sell my advertising" 2. Greeted with a giant Conde Nast wall-of-text full screen modal 3. Scroll through it (wait, we're now reading long legalise terms-of-service just to opt-out now?) 4. In the middle of the wall of text, there's a toggle button for "Sell my Personal Information". Okay, lets forget about the 2012-era debate around UI ambiguity of toggle buttons and accept this UI dark pattern. Try to tap it. 5. I tap it, and it doesn't do anything. You read that right -- the Conde Nast OneTrust-powered opt-out, if you go through all the steps to find it -- doesn't even work on mobile. They're shipping a broken UI. Maybe you need to do something obscure like tap-and-hold-then-drag-in-a-tiny-hitbox-that-doesn't-trigger-horizontal-page-scrolling or something. I haven't figured it out. I assume it's companies like OneTrust or Conde Nast that are complaining Apple's presumably-more-straightforward opt-out carries a "high risk of user refusal." Looking at how user-hostile what they're shipping now shows you what they're really fighting is giving consumers an effective choice.
- gumby 6y ago
  That toggle does operate on non-mobile safari. Note that I said “operate” not “work”: you can flip the toggle, but the two choices are not labeled. Since I pressed “do not sell my information” and then got the Condé Nast opt outs page, does that mean the state of the toggle is already “don’t share”? It’s deliberately impossible to tell.
- SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
  This is the case all over the web. Many of these cookie/privacy modals just don’t work or are deliberately engineered to be as obnoxious as possible. We need some legal test cases where this behavior is declared to be in violation of the spirit of GDPR and CCPA.
  - calvinmorrison 6y ago
kodablah 6y ago
> If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough. I think the statement would be more meaningful with "if they have the choice" removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing in favor of only those with the power to remove choice.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  I think you misunderstood what they were saying. How can someone refuse if they don't have choice?
  - kodablah 6y ago
    Exactly, the focus should be on avoiding what the user doesn't like, not just avoiding what the user doesn't like if there's a choice involved. If the Apple-made tool referenced in the article were subject to the same choice dialog, what might the result be? The simple presentation of the choice is what picks the winners, not the users' preferences.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      That's exactly what he was saying. If users having a choice would result in them never wanting a certain behavior, it shouldn't be in there.

csunbird 6y ago

I think what they mean is, they need finer controls on what data they would like to access and finer controls on informing what data are in use with the application.

smichel17 6y ago
As far as I can tell from the article, there is only a single piece of functionality behind this prompt -- access to the device's unique advertising ID. So, I'm not sure it can get any more granular than that. Quite literally the only functionality it enables is tracking a device across installs or apps.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

More importantly, that should be a sign that you know that you currently aren't obtaining informed consent, and should be thankful that Apple is saving you from the massive GDPR fines you should be getting (if only enforcement would actually happen).

bad_user 6y ago
These companies already know they aren't getting consent from users. GDPR's requirements are pretty clear in this regard and personalisation for advertising can't be a legitimate interest. Every business in the advertising community has seeked legal counseling regarding GDPR, make no mistake about it. They simply hope that they'll be ignored for long enough. > if only enforcement would actually happen It does happen. Maybe not as fast as people would like, investigations and lawsuits take a while, data protection authorities are probably understaffed. Google was fined multiple times already — and they might take this as the cost of doing business, but sooner or later they will be hit with that maximum 4% of global profits if they don't adapt and they are adapting.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  GDPR is over two years old now, and most major web sites are still showing non-compliant dialogs and sharing your data with dozens of trackers. Have there been any fines against either the web sites or the ad/tracking services they use? (IIRC the Google fines were for Android, not ads/web site tracking).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

floatrock 6y ago

> Apple will give them a choice soon enough. And hopefully one not reliant on so many dark patterns. The OneTrust opt-outs are the worst (and don't even work! which must be against the california consumer privacy act). On my iphone in safari: say I'm cooking dinner and go to epicurious.com. Greeted with the now-standard opt-out banner at the bottom. 1. Click the "Do not sell my advertising" 2. Greeted with a giant Conde Nast wall-of-text full screen modal 3. Scroll through it (wait, we're now reading long legalise terms-of-service just to opt-out now?) 4. In the middle of the wall of text, there's a toggle button for "Sell my Personal Information". Okay, lets forget about the 2012-era debate around UI ambiguity of toggle buttons and accept this UI dark pattern. Try to tap it. 5. I tap it, and it doesn't do anything. You read that right -- the Conde Nast OneTrust-powered opt-out, if you go through all the steps to find it -- doesn't even work on mobile. They're shipping a broken UI. Maybe you need to do something obscure like tap-and-hold-then-drag-in-a-tiny-hitbox-that-doesn't-trigger-horizontal-page-scrolling or something. I haven't figured it out. I assume it's companies like OneTrust or Conde Nast that are complaining Apple's presumably-more-straightforward opt-out carries a "high risk of user refusal." Looking at how user-hostile what they're shipping now shows you what they're really fighting is giving consumers an effective choice.

gumby 6y ago
That toggle does operate on non-mobile safari. Note that I said “operate” not “work”: you can flip the toggle, but the two choices are not labeled. Since I pressed “do not sell my information” and then got the Condé Nast opt outs page, does that mean the state of the toggle is already “don’t share”? It’s deliberately impossible to tell.
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
This is the case all over the web. Many of these cookie/privacy modals just don’t work or are deliberately engineered to be as obnoxious as possible. We need some legal test cases where this behavior is declared to be in violation of the spirit of GDPR and CCPA.
- calvinmorrison 6y ago

kodablah 6y ago

> If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough. I think the statement would be more meaningful with "if they have the choice" removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing in favor of only those with the power to remove choice.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
I think you misunderstood what they were saying. How can someone refuse if they don't have choice?
- kodablah 6y ago
  Exactly, the focus should be on avoiding what the user doesn't like, not just avoiding what the user doesn't like if there's a choice involved. If the Apple-made tool referenced in the article were subject to the same choice dialog, what might the result be? The simple presentation of the choice is what picks the winners, not the users' preferences.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    That's exactly what he was saying. If users having a choice would result in them never wanting a certain behavior, it shouldn't be in there.