SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the continuous-enthusiastic-affirmative-consent dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Websites may not present visitors with a pre-checked box that signals consent to the storage of HTTP cookies on their devices, according to a ruling [PDF] handed down on Tuesday by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The decision follows from the German Federation of Consumer Organizations' challenge of German company Planet49's use of a pre-ticked checkbox to obtain permission to place cookies on the devices of players of its online lottery game.
[...]In March, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, who advises the court, said Planet49 failed to obtain valid consent when it presented online lottery players with a pre-selected checkbox.
"[R]equiring a user to positively untick a box and therefore become active if he does not consent to the installation of cookies does not satisfy the criterion of active consent," Szpunar said in his opinion.
"In such a situation, it is virtually impossible to determine objectively whether or not a user has given his consent on the basis of a freely given and informed decision. By contrast, requiring a user to tick a box makes such an assertion far more probable."
[...]The court also makes clear that websites must disclose how long cookies will persist and whether or not third parties will be able [to access] those cookies. This will require existing websites serving European visitors to make code changes to display those cookie parameters.
The cookie consent crackdown comes as third-party cookies are increasingly being blocked by default. Between Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection in Safari's WebKit engine and Mozilla's Enhanced Tracking Protection in Firefox, regulations like GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act, and ad blockers, internet users may actually secure a bit of privacy amid the global surveillance panopticon – unless Google manages to undermine hard-won protections through its suite of Privacy Sandbox proposals.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 03 2019, @02:56PM
Tracking cookies are wrong. I might even go so far as to say "evil", but I would risk sounding like the nemesis of rational thought, who thinks that I am evil.
When I bought a newspaper, the publisher knew nothing about me. Absolutely nothing. I walked up to the news stand, plopped down 35 cents (or so) and carried away my copy of the newspaper. If I SUBSCRIBED to the newspaper, then the publisher knew who I was, and where I lived, but that was about all he knew.
Television, radio, or internet, the publishers are entitled to no more information about me, than a newspaper publisher. Doesn't need to know my age, gender, work history, relatives, military record, police record, what car I drive, or ANYTHING. Take a micro-payment, anonymously, and our deal is done. I read your published material, and go my way. I may be back, if I thought your material was worth the micro-payment. But, it's none of your business whether I come back or not. Just put your wares up for sale, and let me decide, on a daily basis if it is worth a half-cent, or a dollar. I'll PROBABLY not buy, but, you never know until I make the purchase.
The only problem with that plan, is, who processes the micro-payment. I don't really think that I want Firefox, Chrome, Microsoft, or any other payment agents knowing where I go, and what I do. I might go along with Paypal, since I already have a Paypal account. I DO NOT want my bank knowing all this stuff about me.