3 ms·

From my experience, unless I'm missing something, they're annoying because they're not that well implemented, maybe even on purpose? Sites where I have granted

From my experience, unless I'm missing something, they're annoying because they're not that well implemented, maybe even on purpose? Sites where I have granted access keep asking me to re-grant no matter what. Sites where I have denied do the same (although here I would expect it, not that I agree, since I already clicked "no"). And actually it's cool, sometimes you go to some docs and there's 33 "essential" cookies for the well functioning of the website (for a paid product) from which 30 are trackers. Others, like wetransfer will show them as non-essential when receiving a file, but about the same amount of trackers, and this is ok, it's well defined and they're not trying to trick me into clicking "accept essential cookies" with 30 trackers tackled on them. Perhaps one day we can start blacklisting those who don't implement a correct consent cookie form from the internet and dns wouldn't resolve for those non-compliant domains.

dash2 6y ago
I think you're absolutely right. But I also think it was predictable. If we trusted the companies to do the right thing, we could have done that without GDPR. So OK, they live off advertising, they want to track, so now they just use dark patterns. What's next? Yet more regulations about exactly how to show this fundamentally annoying consent question? I just want to browse the internet!!! Sometimes people talk about technological solutions to social problems. I think here the tech solution (like tracker blocking) kind of works, like I can use it on Firefox or Safari and it doesn't waste my time; and the legal solution is a failure.
- hnedeotes 6y ago
  But that forces you to install a plugin that you would need to review the code for which can even be more harmful than tracking - not saying it is, but if ToS are cryptic for a common person, reading the source code of a plugin more so (given that browsers don't offer a way to block what kind of information they provide - with exception of location - which should be something essential, but then perhaps google would stop developing chrome which in terms of functionality/performance has done great for pushing other things). For me this is a question of privacy, I'm ok with ads, but you don't need this to show me ads. It's not a problem that FB has a face recognition pipeline capable of linking me to any image posted in their platform and that a state sponsored agency could use, and track me throughout internet while logging me around, and which emails I open, and my location individually, and then my chats and probably WhatsApp too now, and instagram likes. The problem is when you connect all these systems, with everything else and suddenly you can derive almost a 24/7 coverage of the life of an individual. If you and another person meet and both are carrying their phones then it's easy to sort of connect the remaining dots, specially in light of all other data points captured, security surveillance (public and covert), etc. And this is not problematic by itself, it's problematic when it becomes a system that is available to be used by whatever powers that sit in a position to use them. Today it might not be nefarious but you don't know if tomorrow is the same, but once there it might be difficult to revert the situation.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  The GDPR forbids dark patterns and unclear or annoying consent flows. A consent flow that assumes opt-in (pre-ticked checkboxes, etc) or hides the option to opt-out is not compliant. The problem is the complete lack of enforcement, and the ICO has been particularly incompetent regarding this.

dash2 6y ago

I think you're absolutely right. But I also think it was predictable. If we trusted the companies to do the right thing, we could have done that without GDPR. So OK, they live off advertising, they want to track, so now they just use dark patterns. What's next? Yet more regulations about exactly how to show this fundamentally annoying consent question? I just want to browse the internet!!! Sometimes people talk about technological solutions to social problems. I think here the tech solution (like tracker blocking) kind of works, like I can use it on Firefox or Safari and it doesn't waste my time; and the legal solution is a failure.

hnedeotes 6y ago
But that forces you to install a plugin that you would need to review the code for which can even be more harmful than tracking - not saying it is, but if ToS are cryptic for a common person, reading the source code of a plugin more so (given that browsers don't offer a way to block what kind of information they provide - with exception of location - which should be something essential, but then perhaps google would stop developing chrome which in terms of functionality/performance has done great for pushing other things). For me this is a question of privacy, I'm ok with ads, but you don't need this to show me ads. It's not a problem that FB has a face recognition pipeline capable of linking me to any image posted in their platform and that a state sponsored agency could use, and track me throughout internet while logging me around, and which emails I open, and my location individually, and then my chats and probably WhatsApp too now, and instagram likes. The problem is when you connect all these systems, with everything else and suddenly you can derive almost a 24/7 coverage of the life of an individual. If you and another person meet and both are carrying their phones then it's easy to sort of connect the remaining dots, specially in light of all other data points captured, security surveillance (public and covert), etc. And this is not problematic by itself, it's problematic when it becomes a system that is available to be used by whatever powers that sit in a position to use them. Today it might not be nefarious but you don't know if tomorrow is the same, but once there it might be difficult to revert the situation.
Nextgrid 6y ago
The GDPR forbids dark patterns and unclear or annoying consent flows. A consent flow that assumes opt-in (pre-ticked checkboxes, etc) or hides the option to opt-out is not compliant. The problem is the complete lack of enforcement, and the ICO has been particularly incompetent regarding this.