5 ms·

But the courts are saying: the law does NOT allow this. So maybe “malicious compliance” is a misnomer. We should just call it "illegal dark pattern".

narag 1y ago
Lawmakers must consider enforcement. What are the practical consequences of those rulings?
- seszett 1y ago
  Well almost all websites in France do the legal thing now with an obvious "decline all" button, which was not the case at first. It took just a pair of ruling that made it clear this illegal pattern was going to actually be cracked down upon, and now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap that they were at first. Of course I still wish they were unnecessary, but they serve as a reminder that these websites are still trying to prey upon their visitors.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    > now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous. I don't need a "reminder". The last thing I want is some "reminder" day after day after day. I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.
    - Kbelicius 1y ago
      > Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous. Then don't visit webpages that do illegal things and are hostile to their users. > I want a law that protects consumers in the first place. This is that law.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered." How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? Because that is clearly not the law.
        Kbelicius 1y ago
        > That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered." Nope. Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. It would be like saying "don't go to the bakery where they spit in your food and slap you in the face every time you order something". You are enraged by the behavior of the websites you visit and you still keep going there every day. Either you are a masochist or "voting with your wallet" or, in this instance with you attention, doesn't really work. Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit? > How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because some pages still behave illegally? You understand that murder still happens? > Because that is clearly not the law. Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. Could you point to the text of the regulation that you object to? I'll wait but I'm sure I'll be waiting for godot here.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        > Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. What does that have to do with anything? I think you missed my point. > Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit? Because I have no choice. Every website has these damned popups. Where am I supposed to get my news from otherwise? I mean, what internet do you use...? > They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because sites are still allowed to track me? Why bother with consent around tracking? Just make it illegal to begin with. > Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. That's inappropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines. Assume good faith.
        dapperdrake 1y ago
        How do we help honest websites that avoid tracking compete better?
    - mort96 1y ago
      I agree. These websites should just not spy on me and therefore not have a pop-up. But in the absence of that? I appreciate at least being asked for my consent so that I can press the "I do not consent to being tracked" button. It shouldn't exist in the first place, but since these websites are unwilling to just not spy on people, this seems like the next best thing.
    - account42 1y ago
      Maybe take some responsibility and stop visiting websites that don't respect your privacy? At least now you are informed about which websites don't.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  Laws should be enforceable, but at some point "it's a bad law if it can be bypassed with corruption" just completely surrenders any hope of holding powerful people / companies accountable to anything at all.
  - narag 1y ago
    That's a very absolute outlook. The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting, it's been painfully slow and the harm has been done and the public is suffering meanwhile. Law making is a way of predicting the future and setting up incentives to achieve a goal. You need to foresee what can go wrong, talk to incumbents and anticipate the response. It's a technical matter and this has been a debacle. It's useless to put the blame in the advertisers. Even if they're evil, that doesn't make the situation any better for the public.
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      > The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting Who are "they"? The law hasn't changed, it's enforcement that is changing, albeit very slowly. There are so many institutions that can be rightfully blamed - chiefly the DPAs and the national governments, but your continued insistence on blaming the lawmakers makes no sense. The law is clear, it's just not being enforced. Of course advertisers deserve all this blame too, but their blame is irrelevant when discussing enforcement. I don't expect them to stop any more than I expect a serial killer to turn themselves in. This is still a failure of the institutions.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Lawmakers should have a limit on the number of laws they can write. Say it's 100. They can regulate 100 things, so they need to consider importance. If they want to regulate something new, they have to give up something else. Which one is more important? The vast majority of laws are never enforced, so in practice this isn't as absurd as it sounds. It would make people consider what laws they spend time writing.
  - account42 1y ago
    Agreed. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law we must keep the law small enough so people can actually understand it.
mikae1 1y ago
Not a radical idea. The EU is already working on it. > […] the Commission is pondering how to tweak the rules to include more exceptions or make sure users can set their preferences on cookies once (for example, in their browser settings) instead of every time they visit a website. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-cookie-law-messed-up-the-internet-brussels-sets-out-to-fix-it/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-cookie-law-messed-up-...
- dgfitz 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - yetihehe 1y ago
    The alternative is that they tweak the laws without much thought...
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      Isn’t that the current status quo?
      - lukeschlather 1y ago
        The GDPR has over 100k words, and those words are certainly less than 0.01% of the thought that has gone into this problem.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Agile laws might not be so terrible.
      - JadeNB 1y ago
        Counteropinion: agile laws would be absolutely terrible. Either people wouldn't take them seriously because they're going to change in a few minutes anyway, or people would take them seriously and be bound by law by the equivalent of late-night untested code that seemed like it should work.
ferongr 1y ago
Please post some judicial decisions regarding your claim.
- ruszki 1y ago
  Sometimes I understand these kind of comments, sometimes I don’t. In this case, it’s quicker to find such decisions than writing your comment. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-banner-must-contain-Reject-all-button-10390520.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-ban...
  - anonymous908213 1y ago
    I do love the irony of reading a headline "Administrative court: Cookie banner must contain "Reject all" button" on a website that does a completely blocking cookie banner with no such option. I suppose if I lived in Germany I would be pleased with the results of reporting that to the authorities. More generally, I actually did organically notice the massive increase in "Reject all" buttons and found out about these court decisions myself some time ago. Certainly a small win for the internet, although it should not have taken 9 years(!) from the implementation of GDPR for these violations of it to be cracked down on.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pas 1y ago
  https://noyb.eu/en https://noyb.eu/en has a nice tracker! 883 total cases 468 pending cases € 2B billion fines imposed
immibis 1y ago
But the laws do allow this. It's illegal to make the user experience worse if you decline tracking, or to make it harder to decline tracking than to accept it, but it's not illegal to annoy the user on every page load.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > illegal to make the user experience worse > not illegal to annoy the user on every page load This looks like a contradiction to me.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    OP loves to claim how almost everything is illegal and then not give any useful sources when asked.
  - immibis 1y ago
    > if you decline tracking please read the second half of the clause, kthx
    - mort96 1y ago
      Wait you're saying that the websites in question ask for your consent on every page load even if you give it to them? I was under the impression that they typically pester you for consent until you give it to them, then remember your choice once you "consent"
    - fsflover 1y ago
      This is true by default, even before you decline the tracking. The two choices, consent and no consent, must be equally possible.

narag 1y ago

Lawmakers must consider enforcement. What are the practical consequences of those rulings?

seszett 1y ago
Well almost all websites in France do the legal thing now with an obvious "decline all" button, which was not the case at first. It took just a pair of ruling that made it clear this illegal pattern was going to actually be cracked down upon, and now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap that they were at first. Of course I still wish they were unnecessary, but they serve as a reminder that these websites are still trying to prey upon their visitors.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  > now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous. I don't need a "reminder". The last thing I want is some "reminder" day after day after day. I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.
  - Kbelicius 1y ago
    > Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous. Then don't visit webpages that do illegal things and are hostile to their users. > I want a law that protects consumers in the first place. This is that law.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered." How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? Because that is clearly not the law.
      - Kbelicius 1y ago
        > That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered." Nope. Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. It would be like saying "don't go to the bakery where they spit in your food and slap you in the face every time you order something". You are enraged by the behavior of the websites you visit and you still keep going there every day. Either you are a masochist or "voting with your wallet" or, in this instance with you attention, doesn't really work. Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit? > How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because some pages still behave illegally? You understand that murder still happens? > Because that is clearly not the law. Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. Could you point to the text of the regulation that you object to? I'll wait but I'm sure I'll be waiting for godot here.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        > Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. What does that have to do with anything? I think you missed my point. > Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit? Because I have no choice. Every website has these damned popups. Where am I supposed to get my news from otherwise? I mean, what internet do you use...? > They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because sites are still allowed to track me? Why bother with consent around tracking? Just make it illegal to begin with. > Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. That's inappropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines. Assume good faith.
      - dapperdrake 1y ago
        How do we help honest websites that avoid tracking compete better?
  - mort96 1y ago
    I agree. These websites should just not spy on me and therefore not have a pop-up. But in the absence of that? I appreciate at least being asked for my consent so that I can press the "I do not consent to being tracked" button. It shouldn't exist in the first place, but since these websites are unwilling to just not spy on people, this seems like the next best thing.
  - account42 1y ago
    Maybe take some responsibility and stop visiting websites that don't respect your privacy? At least now you are informed about which websites don't.
schmidtleonard 1y ago
Laws should be enforceable, but at some point "it's a bad law if it can be bypassed with corruption" just completely surrenders any hope of holding powerful people / companies accountable to anything at all.
- narag 1y ago
  That's a very absolute outlook. The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting, it's been painfully slow and the harm has been done and the public is suffering meanwhile. Law making is a way of predicting the future and setting up incentives to achieve a goal. You need to foresee what can go wrong, talk to incumbents and anticipate the response. It's a technical matter and this has been a debacle. It's useless to put the blame in the advertisers. Even if they're evil, that doesn't make the situation any better for the public.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting Who are "they"? The law hasn't changed, it's enforcement that is changing, albeit very slowly. There are so many institutions that can be rightfully blamed - chiefly the DPAs and the national governments, but your continued insistence on blaming the lawmakers makes no sense. The law is clear, it's just not being enforced. Of course advertisers deserve all this blame too, but their blame is irrelevant when discussing enforcement. I don't expect them to stop any more than I expect a serial killer to turn themselves in. This is still a failure of the institutions.
SoftTalker 1y ago
Lawmakers should have a limit on the number of laws they can write. Say it's 100. They can regulate 100 things, so they need to consider importance. If they want to regulate something new, they have to give up something else. Which one is more important? The vast majority of laws are never enforced, so in practice this isn't as absurd as it sounds. It would make people consider what laws they spend time writing.
- account42 1y ago
  Agreed. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law we must keep the law small enough so people can actually understand it.

mikae1 1y ago

Not a radical idea. The EU is already working on it. > […] the Commission is pondering how to tweak the rules to include more exceptions or make sure users can set their preferences on cookies once (for example, in their browser settings) instead of every time they visit a website. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-cookie-law-messed-up-the-internet-brussels-sets-out-to-fix-it/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-cookie-law-messed-up-...

dgfitz 1y ago
[flagged]
- yetihehe 1y ago
  The alternative is that they tweak the laws without much thought...
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    Isn’t that the current status quo?
    - lukeschlather 1y ago
      The GDPR has over 100k words, and those words are certainly less than 0.01% of the thought that has gone into this problem.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Agile laws might not be so terrible.
    - JadeNB 1y ago
      Counteropinion: agile laws would be absolutely terrible. Either people wouldn't take them seriously because they're going to change in a few minutes anyway, or people would take them seriously and be bound by law by the equivalent of late-night untested code that seemed like it should work.

ferongr 1y ago

Please post some judicial decisions regarding your claim.

ruszki 1y ago
Sometimes I understand these kind of comments, sometimes I don’t. In this case, it’s quicker to find such decisions than writing your comment. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-banner-must-contain-Reject-all-button-10390520.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/Administrative-court-Cookie-ban...
- anonymous908213 1y ago
  I do love the irony of reading a headline "Administrative court: Cookie banner must contain "Reject all" button" on a website that does a completely blocking cookie banner with no such option. I suppose if I lived in Germany I would be pleased with the results of reporting that to the authorities. More generally, I actually did organically notice the massive increase in "Reject all" buttons and found out about these court decisions myself some time ago. Certainly a small win for the internet, although it should not have taken 9 years(!) from the implementation of GDPR for these violations of it to be cracked down on.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pas 1y ago
https://noyb.eu/en https://noyb.eu/en has a nice tracker! 883 total cases 468 pending cases € 2B billion fines imposed

immibis 1y ago

But the laws do allow this. It's illegal to make the user experience worse if you decline tracking, or to make it harder to decline tracking than to accept it, but it's not illegal to annoy the user on every page load.

fsflover 1y ago
> illegal to make the user experience worse > not illegal to annoy the user on every page load This looks like a contradiction to me.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  OP loves to claim how almost everything is illegal and then not give any useful sources when asked.
- immibis 1y ago
  > if you decline tracking please read the second half of the clause, kthx
  - mort96 1y ago
    Wait you're saying that the websites in question ask for your consent on every page load even if you give it to them? I was under the impression that they typically pester you for consent until you give it to them, then remember your choice once you "consent"
  - fsflover 1y ago
    This is true by default, even before you decline the tracking. The two choices, consent and no consent, must be equally possible.