5 ms·

Consent banners are definitively not required by the GDPR. Consent is only required for non-essential collection of user data, or for non-essential processing

Consent banners are definitively not required by the GDPR. Consent is only required for non-essential collection of user data, or for non-essential processing of user data. For example, Strava would not need consent to collect user GPS location, as that is core to the product that Strava provides to users. Hacker News would require consent to collect user GPS location, as user GPS location is not essential for posting links/comments. In addition, because consent is specific to a use of data and not to the collection of data, Strava would require additional consent in order to use that GPS data for advertising. The GDPR doesn't require consent pop-ups. Companies choose to add consent pop-ups when they exceed the minimum amount of personal data collection.

scarface74 4y ago
Well, no matter who you want to blame, it all started with a bunch of ignorant lawmakers who caused a series of events that made web browsing worse.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Please substantiate your claims. Your single sentence managed to pack three unsubstantiated claims into it. * "Started with" implies that there were no motivating factors for the GDPR, nor a situation being responded to. Online surveillance is a clear harm being done to users, to which the GDPR is a clear response. * "Ignorant lawmakers" implies that the law was poorly crafted with little subject matter knowledge. This hasn't been my experience in reading it, that the GDPR is well-crafted to make certain unethical business models be infeasible, while avoiding impact to data collection that is essential to a service. * "Made web browsing worse" implies that the current state in which surveillance must make itself known is worse than the previous state in which surveillance could be done silently. I would argue that it is a better state, as knowledge of a hostile act is the first step in preventing it.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    There is nothing to substantiate 1. The law was passed 2. Websites complied with the law 3. Web browsing got worse Has “surveillance capitalism” subsided at all after the GDPR? Did any company announce that it affected their revenue negatively? How many people are saying “we are so glad we have cookie banners everywhere”. I’m also sure that every small business is glad to have to decipher the huge law.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      Please substantiate the following claims: * Explicit claim: "Websites complied with the law" The GDPR does not allow a refusal of consent to take more steps than an acceptance of consent. I have only seen a scant handful of websites where this is the case. Instead, refusal requires following additional links, sometimes disguised as "privacy policy details", disabling each pre-selected consent box, etc. * Implicit claim: "Websites complied with the law" implies that the websites took the only method by which they could be compliant. This is incorrect. Websites had a choice, and could have stopped surveilling users instead. This is a breakage in the causal chain between the passing of the GDPR and the omnipresent cookie banners. * Explicit claim: "Web browsing got worse". Appeals to a majority are not sufficient. A user-hostile website being required to announce itself as such is an improvement.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So your contention is that it’s not a bad law. It’s just an unenforced law and therefore is still ineffective? As far as appealing to the majority, if the majority don’t like the consequences of a law, in a democratic society isn’t that prima facie a bad law unless the law is to protect the minority from the majority? If the websites complied with a law in a form that made web browsing worse and didn’t achieve its intended purpose - isn’t that yet another sign of a badly written law?
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      1. Homicide was made illegal 2. Enforcement corps complied 3. Hitmen's job got harder
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  actually it all started with US companies (and three letter agencies) spying and tracking European citizens until we European said enough is enough If web sites of those tracking us got worse, good! That was the point.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And at any point since then did tracking become less pervasive? You really think the GDPR stopped the US government from tracking anyone?
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      homicide is illegal it hasn't stopped homicides but it made them illegal if your point is that nothing ever changes so there's no point in doing anything, I beg to differ.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Homicides are taken seriously and investigated and if found punished. The only thing that GDPR did was annoy users.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure GDPR fines are a thing too https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ anyway, as many have already pointed out, GDPR does not annoy users, web sites owners do.

scarface74 4y ago

Well, no matter who you want to blame, it all started with a bunch of ignorant lawmakers who caused a series of events that made web browsing worse.

MereInterest 4y ago
Please substantiate your claims. Your single sentence managed to pack three unsubstantiated claims into it. * "Started with" implies that there were no motivating factors for the GDPR, nor a situation being responded to. Online surveillance is a clear harm being done to users, to which the GDPR is a clear response. * "Ignorant lawmakers" implies that the law was poorly crafted with little subject matter knowledge. This hasn't been my experience in reading it, that the GDPR is well-crafted to make certain unethical business models be infeasible, while avoiding impact to data collection that is essential to a service. * "Made web browsing worse" implies that the current state in which surveillance must make itself known is worse than the previous state in which surveillance could be done silently. I would argue that it is a better state, as knowledge of a hostile act is the first step in preventing it.
- scarface74 4y ago
  There is nothing to substantiate 1. The law was passed 2. Websites complied with the law 3. Web browsing got worse Has “surveillance capitalism” subsided at all after the GDPR? Did any company announce that it affected their revenue negatively? How many people are saying “we are so glad we have cookie banners everywhere”. I’m also sure that every small business is glad to have to decipher the huge law.
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    Please substantiate the following claims: * Explicit claim: "Websites complied with the law" The GDPR does not allow a refusal of consent to take more steps than an acceptance of consent. I have only seen a scant handful of websites where this is the case. Instead, refusal requires following additional links, sometimes disguised as "privacy policy details", disabling each pre-selected consent box, etc. * Implicit claim: "Websites complied with the law" implies that the websites took the only method by which they could be compliant. This is incorrect. Websites had a choice, and could have stopped surveilling users instead. This is a breakage in the causal chain between the passing of the GDPR and the omnipresent cookie banners. * Explicit claim: "Web browsing got worse". Appeals to a majority are not sufficient. A user-hostile website being required to announce itself as such is an improvement.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So your contention is that it’s not a bad law. It’s just an unenforced law and therefore is still ineffective? As far as appealing to the majority, if the majority don’t like the consequences of a law, in a democratic society isn’t that prima facie a bad law unless the law is to protect the minority from the majority? If the websites complied with a law in a form that made web browsing worse and didn’t achieve its intended purpose - isn’t that yet another sign of a badly written law?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    1. Homicide was made illegal 2. Enforcement corps complied 3. Hitmen's job got harder
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
actually it all started with US companies (and three letter agencies) spying and tracking European citizens until we European said enough is enough If web sites of those tracking us got worse, good! That was the point.
- scarface74 4y ago
  And at any point since then did tracking become less pervasive? You really think the GDPR stopped the US government from tracking anyone?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    homicide is illegal it hasn't stopped homicides but it made them illegal if your point is that nothing ever changes so there's no point in doing anything, I beg to differ.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Homicides are taken seriously and investigated and if found punished. The only thing that GDPR did was annoy users.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure GDPR fines are a thing too https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ anyway, as many have already pointed out, GDPR does not annoy users, web sites owners do.