Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Cookie Walls Don’t Comply with GDPR, Says Dutch DPA

posted by chromas on Friday March 08 2019, @08:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the cookie-cutter dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/08/cookie-walls-dont-comply-with-gdpr-says-dutch-dpa/

Cookie walls that demand a website visitor agrees to their Internet browsing being tracked for ad-targeting as the ‘price’ of entry to the site are not compliant with European data protection law, the Dutch data protection agency clarified yesterday.

The DPA said it has received dozens of complaints from Internet users who had had their access to websites blocked after refusing to accept tracking cookies — so it has taken the step of publishing clear guidance on the issue.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Cookie Walls Don’t Comply with GDPR, Says Dutch DPA | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 36 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday March 08 2019, @09:20PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 08 2019, @09:20PM (#811748) Journal

    It's a matter of perspective.

    The web site owner thinks it is okay to track you all around the internet and dig into every detail of your life.

    The web site visitor does not think that is okay.

    I agree with the web site visitor. If the web site owner wanted to add binding terms that they could sneak in the middle of the night and steal my and my family members' vital organs, you would probably think that is unacceptable as a condition of being able to visit the web site. I simply see the tracking thing as having gone way, way too far and completely unacceptable. If you want to put ads in front of my eyes you don't get to track every detail of my life in order to do so. If you can't find a way to make money ethically (and I think that's a fair word) then goodbye.

    I already routinely pass up web sites that fail to function because I block too much of their JavaScript. And I am usually okay with enabling some of the JS. But some sites want to send me JS from dozens (yes really!) of 3rd party sites. And as I enable more JS rows in uMatrix then even more and more want to load.

    Just NO THANKS !

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Snow on Friday March 08 2019, @09:23PM

    by Snow (1601) on Friday March 08 2019, @09:23PM (#811753) Journal

    I'm with you on that. I'll enable a couple sources for javascript (especially if it's from their own domain). But as soon as javascript is calling javascript, I say fuck that and move on.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:35AM (#811861)

    If the web site owner wanted to add binding terms that they could sneak in the middle of the night and steal my and my family members' vital organs, you would probably think that is unacceptable as a condition of being able to visit the web site.

    Looks like we've found our starting point for negotiations.