3 ms·

Unrelated to the contents of the article itself, but this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. On mobile, I get a full screen popup, and the

Unrelated to the contents of the article itself, but this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. On mobile, I get a full screen popup, and there appears to be an "accept all" button, but no "reject all" button. I'm grateful to have tools like uBlock Origin's element zapper for pages like this. For those who don't, here's a version of the page with no full-screen banner: https://archive.is/bTEse https://archive.is/bTEse

encom 1y ago
uBlock took care of the cookie law nonsense for me automatically. The internet really is unusable without it.
- 2abcea723a63c9 1y ago
  GDPR is not that bad actually. The Internet is bad and making itself unusable.
snackbroken 1y ago
> this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. Not having an option to reject that is as convenient as the one to accept is not compliant with GDPR.
- rjsw 1y ago
  You have the option of closing the window/tab, seems easy enough to me.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I am given to understand that the GDPR does not consider that "option" sufficient.
    - rjsw 1y ago
      The linked site provides the same choice that other publications do, my guess is that they have all checked this with lawyers.
      - snackbroken 1y ago
        Guidance from the regulators has been abundantly clear on this point. You'll notice all the big players have a "reject all" button because they would get fined otherwise. We're well past the point where anyone can make a reasonable excuse of ignorance, making it onerous to opt out is simply banking on lax enforcement. I, for one, think it's time to start busting some proverbial kneecaps if we ever want publishers to take the matter seriously. The other alternative is to outlaw the collection of personal information without a legitimate purpose (consent or no) _and then_ come down hard on violators. The industry has had ample time to regulate itself and has chosen profit over ethics at every opportunity.
        rjsw 1y ago
        The linked site states that it does not collect personal information until you click on the "agree" button, in what way is that non-compliant with the GDPR?
        snackbroken 1y ago
        Like I said upthread, > Not having an option to reject that is as convenient as the one to accept is not compliant with GDPR. The law, guidance provided by regulators, and court rulings are all quite clear on this: Consent must be freely given, the consent form must not be coercive in any way. This includes (but is not limited to) making rejecting more difficult than accepting, degrading the quality of service for those who reject, gating the service behind accepting, or requiring payment from those who reject. Collecting personal information without prior consent would obviously also be a (worse) violation of the law.
        1y ago
wolrah 1y ago
> this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. No, this is an example of malicious compliance. There are so many bad GDPR banners because the people creating them want you to be annoyed by them. They want to have the easy path being the one that lets them collect as much data as they can and the most private path is as annoying as they believe they can get away with under the law. They want people complaining that the GDPR did nothing but cause all these annoying banners. It'd be possible for many if not most web sites to not have such banners at all by simply defaulting to privacy-friendly behaviors, but there's too much money to be had in the behaviors the GDPR seeks to reduce.
- Findecanor 1y ago
  There is a court ruling that German web sites have to make "Reject All" as simple as "Accept All". This site is not using a loop-hole. It is clearly in violation.
  - wolrah 1y ago
    I honestly can't say I have ever in my life seen a GDPR banner where "Reject All" wasn't in some way more effort than "Accept All". The best I can think of at least keep it the same size and inline, but usually mess with the colors to make it less contrasting and thus harder to identify.
goodpoint 1y ago
Stop blaming GDPR, blame the website.

encom 1y ago

uBlock took care of the cookie law nonsense for me automatically. The internet really is unusable without it.

2abcea723a63c9 1y ago
GDPR is not that bad actually. The Internet is bad and making itself unusable.

snackbroken 1y ago

> this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. Not having an option to reject that is as convenient as the one to accept is not compliant with GDPR.

rjsw 1y ago
You have the option of closing the window/tab, seems easy enough to me.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I am given to understand that the GDPR does not consider that "option" sufficient.
  - rjsw 1y ago
    The linked site provides the same choice that other publications do, my guess is that they have all checked this with lawyers.
    - snackbroken 1y ago
      Guidance from the regulators has been abundantly clear on this point. You'll notice all the big players have a "reject all" button because they would get fined otherwise. We're well past the point where anyone can make a reasonable excuse of ignorance, making it onerous to opt out is simply banking on lax enforcement. I, for one, think it's time to start busting some proverbial kneecaps if we ever want publishers to take the matter seriously. The other alternative is to outlaw the collection of personal information without a legitimate purpose (consent or no) _and then_ come down hard on violators. The industry has had ample time to regulate itself and has chosen profit over ethics at every opportunity.
      - rjsw 1y ago
        The linked site states that it does not collect personal information until you click on the "agree" button, in what way is that non-compliant with the GDPR?
        snackbroken 1y ago
        Like I said upthread, > Not having an option to reject that is as convenient as the one to accept is not compliant with GDPR. The law, guidance provided by regulators, and court rulings are all quite clear on this: Consent must be freely given, the consent form must not be coercive in any way. This includes (but is not limited to) making rejecting more difficult than accepting, degrading the quality of service for those who reject, gating the service behind accepting, or requiring payment from those who reject. Collecting personal information without prior consent would obviously also be a (worse) violation of the law.
        1y ago

wolrah 1y ago

> this page is a great example of the UI ramifications of GDPR. No, this is an example of malicious compliance. There are so many bad GDPR banners because the people creating them want you to be annoyed by them. They want to have the easy path being the one that lets them collect as much data as they can and the most private path is as annoying as they believe they can get away with under the law. They want people complaining that the GDPR did nothing but cause all these annoying banners. It'd be possible for many if not most web sites to not have such banners at all by simply defaulting to privacy-friendly behaviors, but there's too much money to be had in the behaviors the GDPR seeks to reduce.

Findecanor 1y ago
There is a court ruling that German web sites have to make "Reject All" as simple as "Accept All". This site is not using a loop-hole. It is clearly in violation.
- wolrah 1y ago
  I honestly can't say I have ever in my life seen a GDPR banner where "Reject All" wasn't in some way more effort than "Accept All". The best I can think of at least keep it the same size and inline, but usually mess with the colors to make it less contrasting and thus harder to identify.

goodpoint 1y ago

Stop blaming GDPR, blame the website.