5 ms·

Cookie regulations have been a disaster. Cookie prompts are a huge annoyance but the bigger thing is that sites are locking their content with registration wal

by adrr 4y ago

Cookie regulations have been a disaster. Cookie prompts are a huge annoyance but the bigger thing is that sites are locking their content with registration walls so they can track users by logged in state. Benefit to users is actually negative.

eitland 4y ago
> so they can track users by logged in state. This is not allowed either. GDPR, unlike the previous attempt isn't a cookie law but a data law.
- hericium 4y ago
  Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent.
  - mnw21cam 4y ago
    Terms and conditions do not override law. Coerced consent is not consent. By law, the user experience must not be different based on whether the user has or has not given consent for tracking. Registration implies consent to process information (identity) for the purposes for which that information was provided, namely access to the content. It does not imply consent to use that information for other purposes such as tracking, and so any attempt to track a user around a site for advertising purposes using their login details would be in breach of the GDPR, unless the user has explicitly and freely given separate consent for that to be done. For that to be possible, the request for consent to track must be completely separate from the process of creating an account or logging in - it cannot be part of the terms and conditions.
  - eitland 4y ago
    But that consent is invalid according to the law if it was easier to give consent than to say no.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    Even if you register for a service, the service needs to ask you to explicitly opt in for any kind of tracking that you might want.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent That's the Angloamerican common law's logic. In civil law, the law cannot be overridden by others 'agreeing' to override it. Its more like software engineering in that regard, instead of arbitrary interpretations.
    - eadler 4y ago
      This is entirely unrelated to common vs civil law. You're right though that in this case terms of service are ineffective.
      - unity1001 4y ago
        It is totally due to that difference. Contracts form the basis of common law. The reason why so many US corporations think that someone 'agreeing' to terms and therefore entering a contract with the company regarding the usage of the site over those terms means anything in civil law. It does not. In the eyes of civil law, the use of the site would need to take place per the laws and regulations present in civil law as opposed to whatever that the user may agree in terms.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Contracts form the basis of common law. This is factually inaccurate; contracts are one area of, but not the basis of, common law. > In the eyes of civil law, the use of the site would need to take place per the laws and regulations present in civil law as opposed to whatever that the user may agree in terms. In common law, contracts don't trump other law, and contracts or provisions thereof can be invalid for being contrary to public policy.
        unity1001 4y ago
        > This is factually inaccurate; contracts are one area of, but not the basis of, common law. Of course it isn't the entire basis of the law. However it lies in the fundamental of the entire common law institution: Common law originated from the feudal relationship in between the liege lord and the vassal contracting each other based on certain criteria. Over time, this concept was meshed with medieval customs and started being applied to the society as a whole. Hence the awkward medieval-feeling nature of the common law with all those 'precedents', 'interpretations' and 'agreements'. > In common law, contracts don't trump other law, and contracts or provisions thereof can be invalid for being contrary to public policy. Today. And mainly because the US combines common law and civil law in a meshed system. For the UK, its mainly because common law was basically unworkable and indefensible in the modern age after civil law became de facto standard in the entire world, setting the legal discourse. Still, the contractual concepts lies in the fundamental of the law as evidenced by the 'agreement' concept that is so extensively being utilized by US corporations.
  - inopinatus 4y ago
    Law is a philosophical construct, not a programming language. By their own statement Microsoft demonstrated bad faith and intent to coerce, and this forms an antithesis of compliance. Never dick around trying to use contract terms and narrow technicalities to bypass regulations and obligations. It won’t go well.
  - wlll 4y ago
    Others have pointed out the specifics related to websites and GDPR/the ePrivacy directive, but there's another example of why what you say isn't really true that might help understand, and that's EU (and for now UK) consumer law. A site might have terms and conditions, or conditions of sale etc. but if you as an individual buy something you still have protection from consumer laws. Any conditions you agree to are only ever in addition to your statutory rights. So, a company might state that an item has a 12 month warranty (as happened with me, a Mac computer bought from Apple), and it might break after that time (mine after something like 13 months). In my case Apple said they were not going to fix it for free because it was out of warranty and I didn't have Apple care (deliberately because I knew consumer law), but I successfully argued that (as stated in the legislation) that there was a reasonable expectation that the item should have worked for a lot longer than that, ultimately making them responsible. They did in the end accept this and fix it. There's other examples, like if an item is not as described then the company selling it has to pay costs to have it returned, and that the company is responsible for the item while it is in transit in either direction. You are due a refund within 14 days of the /rejection/ of the item, not any other timescale, or dependent on when you return the item, etc. etc. In summary, your "terms and conditions" are effectively irrelevant if they attempt to reduce or bypass existing legislation.
- ilyt 4y ago
  IIRC you cannot block user that clicks "I reject cookies" but that doesn't stop sites from being login-only. So "account-only" would be allowed, but "if you reject cookie you need account" would break it. You still need to get user consent about any tracking and 3rd party tho.
arlcode 4y ago
As others have said tracking consent through the TOS is also not valid. AFAIK the only legitimate way is "Do you want to be tracked? Yes/No". If that means less ad based business models so be it (as far as the GDPR is concerned). Maybe it even means the return of quality content.
- Moissanite 4y ago
  I don't see how banning digital advertising would be anything other than a net positive to society and it drives me crazy that such an idea is beyond discussion thanks to how enthralled our political class is.
  - baeaz 4y ago
    How will ad-supported sites function without ads? Government subsidies?
    - Moissanite 4y ago
      Hopefully they will just go away; much easier to understand the value proposition of some content if the owner has had to put an actual price tag on it. Yes, people will end up consuming less media - but given how precipitously the quality of news and news-like publishing has dropped, I'd be glad to have fewer, better sources of "journalism".
      - baeaz 4y ago
        If you don't like them then don't visit them or visit them with an ad blocker on. Don't deprive users from the content and don't deprive staff from their jobs.
        Dah00n 4y ago
        This is just like the "I have nothing to hide so I don't mind tracking" argument.
unity1001 4y ago
> sites are locking their content with registration walls so they can track users by logged in state This has nothing to do with that. NYT started locking its content years before cookie regulations. Membership content existed way before. It recently exploded. That's why. Not due to cookies.
ilyt 4y ago
Well, users now know which sites to avoid like plague so it is not without benefits.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  The problem is it's pretty much all sites :( This one being a very rare but welcome exception.

by adrr 4y ago

eitland 4y ago

> so they can track users by logged in state. This is not allowed either. GDPR, unlike the previous attempt isn't a cookie law but a data law.

hericium 4y ago
Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  Terms and conditions do not override law. Coerced consent is not consent. By law, the user experience must not be different based on whether the user has or has not given consent for tracking. Registration implies consent to process information (identity) for the purposes for which that information was provided, namely access to the content. It does not imply consent to use that information for other purposes such as tracking, and so any attempt to track a user around a site for advertising purposes using their login details would be in breach of the GDPR, unless the user has explicitly and freely given separate consent for that to be done. For that to be possible, the request for consent to track must be completely separate from the process of creating an account or logging in - it cannot be part of the terms and conditions.
- eitland 4y ago
  But that consent is invalid according to the law if it was easier to give consent than to say no.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Hamuko 4y ago
  Even if you register for a service, the service needs to ask you to explicitly opt in for any kind of tracking that you might want.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Users accept vendor's conditions upon registering and are giving their consent That's the Angloamerican common law's logic. In civil law, the law cannot be overridden by others 'agreeing' to override it. Its more like software engineering in that regard, instead of arbitrary interpretations.
  - eadler 4y ago
    This is entirely unrelated to common vs civil law. You're right though that in this case terms of service are ineffective.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      It is totally due to that difference. Contracts form the basis of common law. The reason why so many US corporations think that someone 'agreeing' to terms and therefore entering a contract with the company regarding the usage of the site over those terms means anything in civil law. It does not. In the eyes of civil law, the use of the site would need to take place per the laws and regulations present in civil law as opposed to whatever that the user may agree in terms.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Contracts form the basis of common law. This is factually inaccurate; contracts are one area of, but not the basis of, common law. > In the eyes of civil law, the use of the site would need to take place per the laws and regulations present in civil law as opposed to whatever that the user may agree in terms. In common law, contracts don't trump other law, and contracts or provisions thereof can be invalid for being contrary to public policy.
        unity1001 4y ago
        > This is factually inaccurate; contracts are one area of, but not the basis of, common law. Of course it isn't the entire basis of the law. However it lies in the fundamental of the entire common law institution: Common law originated from the feudal relationship in between the liege lord and the vassal contracting each other based on certain criteria. Over time, this concept was meshed with medieval customs and started being applied to the society as a whole. Hence the awkward medieval-feeling nature of the common law with all those 'precedents', 'interpretations' and 'agreements'. > In common law, contracts don't trump other law, and contracts or provisions thereof can be invalid for being contrary to public policy. Today. And mainly because the US combines common law and civil law in a meshed system. For the UK, its mainly because common law was basically unworkable and indefensible in the modern age after civil law became de facto standard in the entire world, setting the legal discourse. Still, the contractual concepts lies in the fundamental of the law as evidenced by the 'agreement' concept that is so extensively being utilized by US corporations.
- inopinatus 4y ago
  Law is a philosophical construct, not a programming language. By their own statement Microsoft demonstrated bad faith and intent to coerce, and this forms an antithesis of compliance. Never dick around trying to use contract terms and narrow technicalities to bypass regulations and obligations. It won’t go well.
- wlll 4y ago
  Others have pointed out the specifics related to websites and GDPR/the ePrivacy directive, but there's another example of why what you say isn't really true that might help understand, and that's EU (and for now UK) consumer law. A site might have terms and conditions, or conditions of sale etc. but if you as an individual buy something you still have protection from consumer laws. Any conditions you agree to are only ever in addition to your statutory rights. So, a company might state that an item has a 12 month warranty (as happened with me, a Mac computer bought from Apple), and it might break after that time (mine after something like 13 months). In my case Apple said they were not going to fix it for free because it was out of warranty and I didn't have Apple care (deliberately because I knew consumer law), but I successfully argued that (as stated in the legislation) that there was a reasonable expectation that the item should have worked for a lot longer than that, ultimately making them responsible. They did in the end accept this and fix it. There's other examples, like if an item is not as described then the company selling it has to pay costs to have it returned, and that the company is responsible for the item while it is in transit in either direction. You are due a refund within 14 days of the /rejection/ of the item, not any other timescale, or dependent on when you return the item, etc. etc. In summary, your "terms and conditions" are effectively irrelevant if they attempt to reduce or bypass existing legislation.
ilyt 4y ago
IIRC you cannot block user that clicks "I reject cookies" but that doesn't stop sites from being login-only. So "account-only" would be allowed, but "if you reject cookie you need account" would break it. You still need to get user consent about any tracking and 3rd party tho.

arlcode 4y ago

As others have said tracking consent through the TOS is also not valid. AFAIK the only legitimate way is "Do you want to be tracked? Yes/No". If that means less ad based business models so be it (as far as the GDPR is concerned). Maybe it even means the return of quality content.

Moissanite 4y ago
I don't see how banning digital advertising would be anything other than a net positive to society and it drives me crazy that such an idea is beyond discussion thanks to how enthralled our political class is.
- baeaz 4y ago
  How will ad-supported sites function without ads? Government subsidies?
  - Moissanite 4y ago
    Hopefully they will just go away; much easier to understand the value proposition of some content if the owner has had to put an actual price tag on it. Yes, people will end up consuming less media - but given how precipitously the quality of news and news-like publishing has dropped, I'd be glad to have fewer, better sources of "journalism".
    - baeaz 4y ago
      If you don't like them then don't visit them or visit them with an ad blocker on. Don't deprive users from the content and don't deprive staff from their jobs.
      - Dah00n 4y ago
        This is just like the "I have nothing to hide so I don't mind tracking" argument.

unity1001 4y ago

> sites are locking their content with registration walls so they can track users by logged in state This has nothing to do with that. NYT started locking its content years before cookie regulations. Membership content existed way before. It recently exploded. That's why. Not due to cookies.

ilyt 4y ago

Well, users now know which sites to avoid like plague so it is not without benefits.

wkat4242 4y ago
The problem is it's pretty much all sites :( This one being a very rare but welcome exception.