6 ms·

Or just ban this kind of data collection. Is there any reason anyone would willingly click "Accept" when a website asks to share your data with 500+ partner sit

by rustc 1y ago

Or just ban this kind of data collection. Is there any reason anyone would willingly click "Accept" when a website asks to share your data with 500+ partner sites?

p_l 1y ago
Guess what, those banners are still up because it's pretty hard to actually bring the banhammer. At best you have too small team working with huge backlog
forgotoldacc 1y ago
For that matter, companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners." Partners comes with an implication of being somewhat equal or at least on trusting terms. The companies selling our data don't trust these companies. They probably don't even know their names. If the data is being sold, it should be legally required to word it in that way. If there's even the slightest possibility of your data being leaked to spammers, it should be worded to reflect that. "Do you consent to us selling your data to any party that wishes to buy your data? Do you consent to the possibility that your data will be used to spam you or steal your identity in the future? Yes/No"
- darig 1y ago
  [dead]
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  The word "partner" lost its meaning completely. Each business relation is a "partner" these days. Guess it sounds nicer than "company that pays me to do stuff and bug you about"
  - foofoo12 1y ago
    I always read it as "partner in crime".
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    I'm not sure all these relationships are monetary. It may even be the case that the website pays X company to perform the tracking for their own analytics purposes. Or that it's X company's own freemium model where if you add their tracker they grant you a bunch of cross-site information for free.
    - GTP 1y ago
      True, but having to be explicit about a monetary relationship would still be a step forward.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> If the data is being sold... Nah. Personal data sharing needs to be banned. It's the right way forward.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    I think banned it a bit too strong. However there needs to be strong regulations on what can be shared. If I go to an ER in a different area (read different medical system) I want my doctor to share personal data. I don't want my doctor to share my personal data with a random doctor in the same medical system unless that other doctor is an expert being consulted on something about me. (that is just being a doctor doesn't give you access to my private information, it needs to be on a need to know). The above is the obvious case. There are likely other cases that are not obvious where after looking closely private information should be shared. Advertisement is never one of those reasons though, and analytics is only a reason if they anonymize the data with prison terms for mistakes.
  - GJim 1y ago
    > Personal data sharing needs to be banned. Indiscriminate sharing of personal data IS banned under the GDPR. If you collect personal data, you must only collect it for the stated purpose and can't sell or share it for any other reason. I continue to be astounded at the ignorance some people have of the GDPR; a vital privacy law and one that is fundamental to modern data use and respect for the customer. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/data-sharing-a-code-of-practice/lawful-basis-for-sharing-personal-data/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Then you need to start directly paying for 90%+ of the websites you visit. People don't want this, so there is a quick reversion to "pay with your data".
    - DangitBobby 1y ago
      The Internet somehow managed to run without our computers spying on us for quite some time, I think it will manage with normal ads.
- GJim 1y ago
  > companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners." They are under the GDPR. If you ask for my data, you must do so fairly and tell me what you are using it for. In the examples you site, if you read the small print "sharing with partners" will go on to say advertising 'letting you know about products and services' and other such shite.
Xss3 1y ago
Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership. If my 'data' is a no logs vpn address with a privacy hardened browser running in a VM on an isolated VLAN with encrypted DNS then why wouldn't I just laugh and click accept cookies in a sandboxed tab (so said cookies only exist for that tab and are cleared when it is closed. What youre saying most users dont have this level of privacy by default? Why not?
- jamespo 1y ago
  There could be a multitude of reasons, mobile browsing for example.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  >Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership. GDPR article 7, section 4: When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. basically: A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service anyone who does that is in violation of GDPR
  - Xss3 1y ago
    Major news outlets doing it are willing to argue it is okay. They are a membership only news publication with a free viewing option in their books. Iirc it boils down to the fact the user still has a choice. Either way your interpretation of GDPR and several major news outlets clearly differ, and i would bet my house on them having access to better legal advice than you.
    - Xelbair 1y ago
      or simply betting on the fact that GDPR is selectively enforced(and i think that's the biggest problem with it)
janwl 1y ago
This law was supposed to give me control of my data. If I have control of my data, why can't I use it to pay the owner of the website?
- zetanor 1y ago
  Click-through "I agree" buttons are almost never a matter of informed consent and almost always a matter of convenience-driven rape.
- Kbelicius 1y ago
  You can freely share your data under GDPR but the owner of the website can not request data as form of payment for the access to the website.
  - janwl 1y ago
    That doesn’t seem to give me much freedom about my data - in fact it seems like it took freedom away from me.
    - Kbelicius 1y ago
      Yes, we live in a society. You aren't allowed to do anything you want. But you are wrong. You had no option before, now you have. How is that taking away freedom from you?
    - GJim 1y ago
      > it seems like it took freedom away from me And it *gave* freedom to society not to have their personal data exploited and privacy invaded for corporate profit.
regentbowerbird 1y ago
The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance. No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.
  - GJim 1y ago
    Famously.... Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top. For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?
  - tcfhgj 1y ago
    not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more
  - tclancy 1y ago
    Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.
  - regentbowerbird 1y ago
    Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising. You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised. Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.
GJim 1y ago
> Or just ban this kind of data collection It is banned. Unless I give me explicit permission otherwise (though as you say, why anybody would is beyond me, but then "there's nowt as queer as folk")
eviks 1y ago
Yes, of course, the reason is pretty simple - someone would willingly accept that to access ad-surveilance-financed content!
dangus 1y ago
On this note, this is a good reminder that if you don’t collect information in this way, your website is under no obligation to provide a cookie banner. Any website that uses a cookie banner is going above and beyond what they need to do to run a functional website in order to track you.
jjcm 1y ago
> Or just ban this kind of data collection Targeted ads generally bring in 3x the revenue of generic ads. Personally speaking, I'd rather have 1/3rd the ads on a page and allow my data to be tracked. I don't mind my data being tracked, and I'd rather see ads for keyboards / mens clothes (what I buy) than diapers / ladies shoes (who knows what tomorrow holds, but this is not what I'm buying at the moment).
- move-on-by 1y ago
  1. Targeted ads being more profitable has no relevance to the number of ads on the page. Advertisers will always try to maximize the number of ads and potential profits regardless of profitability. 2. Contextual ads are not targeted and would not be showing you adverts for diapers or ladies shoes- unless you are reading about diapers or ladies shoes.
- odie5533 1y ago
  But you know well that they'll keep the same number of ads and just profit from the better targeting. They're not going to cut back on the ads
EasyMark 1y ago
I agree, the context of the website/topic/whatever should be more than enough to derive enough to load an add. On a hackerspace page? put up some rpi or DMM add. On rock music site? Thow up some vinyl adds or guitar tabs. Etc.

by rustc 1y ago

Or just ban this kind of data collection. Is there any reason anyone would willingly click "Accept" when a website asks to share your data with 500+ partner sites?

p_l 1y ago

Guess what, those banners are still up because it's pretty hard to actually bring the banhammer. At best you have too small team working with huge backlog

forgotoldacc 1y ago

For that matter, companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners." Partners comes with an implication of being somewhat equal or at least on trusting terms. The companies selling our data don't trust these companies. They probably don't even know their names. If the data is being sold, it should be legally required to word it in that way. If there's even the slightest possibility of your data being leaked to spammers, it should be worded to reflect that. "Do you consent to us selling your data to any party that wishes to buy your data? Do you consent to the possibility that your data will be used to spam you or steal your identity in the future? Yes/No"

darig 1y ago
[dead]
johannes1234321 1y ago
The word "partner" lost its meaning completely. Each business relation is a "partner" these days. Guess it sounds nicer than "company that pays me to do stuff and bug you about"
- foofoo12 1y ago
  I always read it as "partner in crime".
- lesuorac 1y ago
  I'm not sure all these relationships are monetary. It may even be the case that the website pays X company to perform the tracking for their own analytics purposes. Or that it's X company's own freemium model where if you add their tracker they grant you a bunch of cross-site information for free.
  - GTP 1y ago
    True, but having to be explicit about a monetary relationship would still be a step forward.
phkahler 1y ago
>> If the data is being sold... Nah. Personal data sharing needs to be banned. It's the right way forward.
- bluGill 1y ago
  I think banned it a bit too strong. However there needs to be strong regulations on what can be shared. If I go to an ER in a different area (read different medical system) I want my doctor to share personal data. I don't want my doctor to share my personal data with a random doctor in the same medical system unless that other doctor is an expert being consulted on something about me. (that is just being a doctor doesn't give you access to my private information, it needs to be on a need to know). The above is the obvious case. There are likely other cases that are not obvious where after looking closely private information should be shared. Advertisement is never one of those reasons though, and analytics is only a reason if they anonymize the data with prison terms for mistakes.
- GJim 1y ago
  > Personal data sharing needs to be banned. Indiscriminate sharing of personal data IS banned under the GDPR. If you collect personal data, you must only collect it for the stated purpose and can't sell or share it for any other reason. I continue to be astounded at the ignorance some people have of the GDPR; a vital privacy law and one that is fundamental to modern data use and respect for the customer. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/data-sharing-a-code-of-practice/lawful-basis-for-sharing-personal-data/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Then you need to start directly paying for 90%+ of the websites you visit. People don't want this, so there is a quick reversion to "pay with your data".
  - DangitBobby 1y ago
    The Internet somehow managed to run without our computers spying on us for quite some time, I think it will manage with normal ads.
GJim 1y ago
> companies should be banned from referring to selling off your data to random spam companies as "sharing with partners." They are under the GDPR. If you ask for my data, you must do so fairly and tell me what you are using it for. In the examples you site, if you read the small print "sharing with partners" will go on to say advertising 'letting you know about products and services' and other such shite.

Xss3 1y ago

Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership. If my 'data' is a no logs vpn address with a privacy hardened browser running in a VM on an isolated VLAN with encrypted DNS then why wouldn't I just laugh and click accept cookies in a sandboxed tab (so said cookies only exist for that tab and are cleared when it is closed. What youre saying most users dont have this level of privacy by default? Why not?

jamespo 1y ago
There could be a multitude of reasons, mobile browsing for example.
Xelbair 1y ago
>Some websites, mostly news outlets, can legally withhold access completely, and do, unless you accept all cookies or pay for membership. GDPR article 7, section 4: When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. basically: A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service anyone who does that is in violation of GDPR
- Xss3 1y ago
  Major news outlets doing it are willing to argue it is okay. They are a membership only news publication with a free viewing option in their books. Iirc it boils down to the fact the user still has a choice. Either way your interpretation of GDPR and several major news outlets clearly differ, and i would bet my house on them having access to better legal advice than you.
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    or simply betting on the fact that GDPR is selectively enforced(and i think that's the biggest problem with it)

janwl 1y ago

This law was supposed to give me control of my data. If I have control of my data, why can't I use it to pay the owner of the website?

zetanor 1y ago
Click-through "I agree" buttons are almost never a matter of informed consent and almost always a matter of convenience-driven rape.
Kbelicius 1y ago
You can freely share your data under GDPR but the owner of the website can not request data as form of payment for the access to the website.
- janwl 1y ago
  That doesn’t seem to give me much freedom about my data - in fact it seems like it took freedom away from me.
  - Kbelicius 1y ago
    Yes, we live in a society. You aren't allowed to do anything you want. But you are wrong. You had no option before, now you have. How is that taking away freedom from you?
  - GJim 1y ago
    > it seems like it took freedom away from me And it *gave* freedom to society not to have their personal data exploited and privacy invaded for corporate profit.

regentbowerbird 1y ago

The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance. No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.

phkahler 1y ago
>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.
- GJim 1y ago
  Famously.... Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top. For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?
- tcfhgj 1y ago
  not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more
- tclancy 1y ago
  Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.
- regentbowerbird 1y ago
  Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising. You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised. Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.

GJim 1y ago

> Or just ban this kind of data collection It is banned. Unless I give me explicit permission otherwise (though as you say, why anybody would is beyond me, but then "there's nowt as queer as folk")

eviks 1y ago

Yes, of course, the reason is pretty simple - someone would willingly accept that to access ad-surveilance-financed content!

dangus 1y ago

On this note, this is a good reminder that if you don’t collect information in this way, your website is under no obligation to provide a cookie banner. Any website that uses a cookie banner is going above and beyond what they need to do to run a functional website in order to track you.

jjcm 1y ago

> Or just ban this kind of data collection Targeted ads generally bring in 3x the revenue of generic ads. Personally speaking, I'd rather have 1/3rd the ads on a page and allow my data to be tracked. I don't mind my data being tracked, and I'd rather see ads for keyboards / mens clothes (what I buy) than diapers / ladies shoes (who knows what tomorrow holds, but this is not what I'm buying at the moment).

move-on-by 1y ago
1. Targeted ads being more profitable has no relevance to the number of ads on the page. Advertisers will always try to maximize the number of ads and potential profits regardless of profitability. 2. Contextual ads are not targeted and would not be showing you adverts for diapers or ladies shoes- unless you are reading about diapers or ladies shoes.
odie5533 1y ago
But you know well that they'll keep the same number of ads and just profit from the better targeting. They're not going to cut back on the ads

EasyMark 1y ago

I agree, the context of the website/topic/whatever should be more than enough to derive enough to load an add. On a hackerspace page? put up some rpi or DMM add. On rock music site? Thow up some vinyl adds or guitar tabs. Etc.