3 ms·

Google is fined 100 millions because tracking cookies are saved on the device before opting-in AND after opting-out, and because the cookie modal isn't clear en

Google is fined 100 millions because tracking cookies are saved on the device before opting-in AND after opting-out, and because the cookie modal isn't clear enough. [1] Amazon is fined 35 millions for similar reasons, but the amount is lower because they acknowledged and fixed the issues in September 2020. [2] [1] https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-financial-penalties-60-million-euros-against-company-google-llc-and-40-million-euros-google-ireland https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-financial-penalties-60-millio... [2] https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-financial-penalty-35-million-euros-imposed-company-amazon-europe-core https://www.cnil.fr/en/cookies-financial-penalty-35-million-...

ptsneves 6y ago
Typical Google. Let us not even get started with the impossibility of loading Google in private mode without needing to agree to everything. Rejecting all is a dance that takes more time and mental resources than the amount i want to spend for the few times I want to turn on private mode and search something. My colleagues have also declared defeat and just accept everything. Hope the fine bites.
- hef19898 6y ago
  And after Google, everyone else. I am so annoyed by sites making it a real struggle rejecting cookies. Most of the time, I just don't use those anymore. Not sure if that helps, so.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    I suspect that is the goal: 1) To get people to quickly simply accept all cookies because time is money and its too complex. 2) To get scare them away. If you don't wanna be the product, at least save us money. 3) To make them waste their time (= money) on their privacy. Boss won't like #3, neither does the wife. So its like #1. Sure, whatever. Or, those who stick to their principle and can refrain their curiosity or need for information to go for #2. The advertising industry (I almost wrote undustry, go figure) is so rotten, that I will gladly just shell out some money to buy something of quality instead. I just gotta be sure it isn't money wasted ie. that I (or whoever I buy it for) will use it. With advertising services which are free, the real product is also the demo, but their model is to get you hooked.
- Kuinox 6y ago
  There are lists in uBlock Origin to block these.
- distances 6y ago
  If you mean the new Google consent popup, good uBlock rules for suppressing that: https://daniel-lange.com/archives/164-Getting-rid-of-the-Google-cookie-consent-popup.html https://daniel-lange.com/archives/164-Getting-rid-of-the-Goo...
msla 6y ago
Those amounts don't seem near enough to make it financially worthwhile for them to change their behavior.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  If they don't comply within three months, they start getting another copy of this fine every day until they do. Which is to say, the punitive fines are not enough for them to not play games with the rules... but once they're caught they do have to fall in. This demonstrates the need for constant enforcement diligence by regulators: These companies can and will continue to flagrantly disregard the law unless regularly checked.

ptsneves 6y ago

Typical Google. Let us not even get started with the impossibility of loading Google in private mode without needing to agree to everything. Rejecting all is a dance that takes more time and mental resources than the amount i want to spend for the few times I want to turn on private mode and search something. My colleagues have also declared defeat and just accept everything. Hope the fine bites.

hef19898 6y ago
And after Google, everyone else. I am so annoyed by sites making it a real struggle rejecting cookies. Most of the time, I just don't use those anymore. Not sure if that helps, so.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Fnoord 6y ago
  I suspect that is the goal: 1) To get people to quickly simply accept all cookies because time is money and its too complex. 2) To get scare them away. If you don't wanna be the product, at least save us money. 3) To make them waste their time (= money) on their privacy. Boss won't like #3, neither does the wife. So its like #1. Sure, whatever. Or, those who stick to their principle and can refrain their curiosity or need for information to go for #2. The advertising industry (I almost wrote undustry, go figure) is so rotten, that I will gladly just shell out some money to buy something of quality instead. I just gotta be sure it isn't money wasted ie. that I (or whoever I buy it for) will use it. With advertising services which are free, the real product is also the demo, but their model is to get you hooked.
Kuinox 6y ago
There are lists in uBlock Origin to block these.
distances 6y ago
If you mean the new Google consent popup, good uBlock rules for suppressing that: https://daniel-lange.com/archives/164-Getting-rid-of-the-Google-cookie-consent-popup.html https://daniel-lange.com/archives/164-Getting-rid-of-the-Goo...

msla 6y ago

Those amounts don't seem near enough to make it financially worthwhile for them to change their behavior.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
If they don't comply within three months, they start getting another copy of this fine every day until they do. Which is to say, the punitive fines are not enough for them to not play games with the rules... but once they're caught they do have to fall in. This demonstrates the need for constant enforcement diligence by regulators: These companies can and will continue to flagrantly disregard the law unless regularly checked.