SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Frankfort, Kentucky, makes it against the law to shoot off a policeman's tie.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday March 08 2019, @08:59PM (15 children)
"To use this site, we want you to agree to these terms, which coincidentally includes us serving you cookies"
"No"
[disables website]
"Waaaa"
I mean yeah, I get that not everybody wants to be tracked, but what did you expect would happen?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:14PM (7 children)
The interesting part is that if you browse with javascript off, 99 times out of 100 the contents of the site that you wanted to access appears anyway, with the cookie banner at the top/bottom of the screen asking the "agree" question.
In which case you can read the content, and never agree or disagree to their ask.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Friday March 08 2019, @09:22PM (2 children)
For a while some sites were using some kind of script that detected that you had blocked most of their 3rd party scripts and put up a big white page with something like: Something has prevented this page from loading.
But if I then disabled ALL javascript, the page showed up just fine.
Another trick: sometimes a site appears in a useable way by: View --> Page Style --> No Style; thus disabling all CSS.
It is truly sad that this is becoming an arms race.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
I just block them with the ublock origin element blocker. It works fine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Friday March 08 2019, @10:25PM
Yes, I concur- I do all of the above- most browsing with javascript off, often have to disable CSS, and use lots of blockers including ublock0 and umatrix when I'm in the mood (it's awesome though). Every now and then I come across a site that refuses to display anything but a banner saying "please enable javascript". We need much finer control over what the browser's javascript interpreter is allowed to do. Sometimes I use a proxy, or "in private" browsing mode, but it's pretty rare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @10:22PM
If the site in question has some interest I just right-click and block the banner with ublock Origin and never seen again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @10:28PM
You hit the nail on the head.
I don't allow scripts of any kind much less JS. I get that "Let us set our cookie!" drivel all the time. I simply scroll past it & read the content anyway.
If the site refuses to serve up the content then I simply get a search engine cache of the plain text of the page & read it that way.
You have *no* valid reason to put a cookie on my machine unless I've got an account with you. If the only reason is to track & market to me then you can KMMFA. Don't like it? Tough. Put up a paywall to keep me out. I'll just get my news elsewhere.
"Butbutbutbut! How will they survive if they can't set a cookie? ZOMG! Won't someone think of their starving children?"
The same way they survived when they sold newspapers laid open flat on a news stand so passers by could read the front page for free. It enticed them to buy a copy to get more of the story, otherwise that potential customer went somewhere else to get their news.
You can make the front page worth of stuff free for non-cookie-allowing people, but that just gives us the bits we needed anyway. 90% of the story will be in the first paragraph with the "meat & potatoes" getting spread over a zillion different pages inside. In the digital age the "teaser paragraph" might entice us to allow the cookie to read more, but then it ALSO might prove to us that your publication is nothing but click bait shit that needs to be flushed.
I just go to the news feed service of my search engine & read plain text caches of all the news that interests me.
"But but but, but you could subscribe to OUR RSS feeds & get the stories delivered that way!"
Which would mean letting you set a cookie. What part of "anonymous" did you not understand?
*Wicked, Evil grin*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:24AM
I'm not sure if the people in this thread are browsing the same web as me. I browse with JS=off by default, and I'd say about 60% of the sites I hit are broken and unusable, or only partially usable. Of course, most of them are of little value, and I close the tab and don't think about it too much.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:01PM
There are people that don't browse with scripts off?
.
What do they do after their computer mysteriously slows down to the point of unusability?
.
(It's not like they can go buy a new one with an empty bank account)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday March 08 2019, @09:20PM (2 children)
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 !
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snow on Friday March 08 2019, @09:23PM
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
Looks like we've found our starting point for negotiations.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday March 08 2019, @09:23PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:36PM
The agency is saying going against the obvious spirit of the law forcing sites to offer a choice to be or not to be tracked does not go.
It's pretty candid but it makes sense. The sites are the ones acting in bad faith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jb on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:26AM
Nobody wants to be tracked: tracking is desirable for exactly zero users.
The real question is about willingness (consent), not desirability.
To mean anything, consent has to be informed. Since the average Internet user (the proverbial "man on the Clapham omnibus") has no idea how cookies can be used against him and no "cookie wall" ever explains it in any depth (as to do so would be to encourage everyone to click "No"), it is reasonable to infer that the consent was not informed and therefore meaningless.
I haven't read the DPA ruling, but I suspect that was their reasoning -- it would be under any sane legal system.
At least two workable solutions exist, either: (a) serve up the same ads to everyone (like most websites did before the current fad of spying on one's users came into fashion), accept a lower conversion rate on ads & counter that by making your content more desirable so that overall volume makes up for the dip in conversion rate; or (b) find a business model that doesn't include selling advertising space or user data (there are many such models to choose from; none are quite as "easy" as the dastardly practice of treating your users as resources to be exploited, but then again, running a legitimate business at a profit is not supposed to be easy ... otherwise everyone would be doing it and there would be no candidates left to hire as employees).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @10:53PM
Right Click -> Block Element -> Carry On Your Day
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:21PM (10 children)
The sooner that the EU is blocked off from the Internet (and it has already begun), the better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday March 08 2019, @09:25PM (5 children)
I don't blame the EU. I blame advertisers.
The sooner that the Advertisers are blocked off from the Internet, the better.
Advertising ruins every medium that it ever touches or has ever touched. They all ultimately turn into vast wastelands. Radio. TV. Cable TV. BYTE magazine becoming a glorified "computer shopper" before there was computer shopper.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @11:15PM (3 children)
I don't blame the advertisers. I blame the audience, for being so easy. The objective is singular, the ad has to pay more than it costs by a specified ratio, every other detail, big and small, is entirely irrelevant. Consumer demand will be met!
Oh, and that stupid EU "privacy" law is pure bullshit. Technically speaking, the web sites only collect what is given to them. So, just be more damn careful what you give! Don't be so stupid as to give your real name when subscribing to your girlie magazines.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:44AM (1 child)
Of course the chickenshit moderator won't explain what makes the above comment a troll. It's entirely true, every bit of it!
Bah! Fuck 'em! Some moderators are real cowards. They would rather believe nice warm fuzzy bullshit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:02AM
THIS chickenshit moderator justed modded you "troll" for being a troll about being moderated troll. Back under your bridge, troll, lest I downmod you a seconde tyme!
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:21PM
I did NOT mod your comment (at least not in this case, so hard to tell with ACs), but this probably pissed someone off:
.
.
While admittedly 'technically correct' is the best kind of correct...
.
Websites collect every site you visit, every choice you make on those sites, any information you provide to any site anywhere, your ISP, Mobile provider, Geolocations, how long you spend on various sites, which ads you do and don't click on, what diseases you have, your age, every search you make, every comment you make, what services you subscribe to, who sends you emails and notifications, how much you make, who you work for, who is related to you, who your friends are, what credit cards you have, what stocks you track and invest in, how you get to work, what bank you use, etc, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
.
Troll is often used as a catch all for other things, but I guess that's life as we've only got so many options. Guessing, but probably someone generally aware of the above levels of surveillance on the web considered your comment more likely a troll than serious.
.
Or they just didn't like the cut of your jib. Who knows.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:40AM
Which would shut off all websites that aren't hobby, non-profit, or selling physical goods or media rentals. Would you prefer to have to pay the owner of each website $5 for a monthly pass to visit that site? Let me know when there's one website, singular, where I can subscribe to "journalism" in general.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Friday March 08 2019, @09:52PM (1 child)
Thank you, Anomalous. I came here to say that. We can put a big beautiful wall around our American Internet. And we can do it with American cyber. Like we did for China. They call it National Public Security Work Informational. And it's been keeping the China Internet safe for over 20 years. Keeping out the Hacking. Keeping out the Terrorism. And keeping out the Drugs. So the China Economy can grow. I'll tell you, it's been growing tremendously. Because they keep out the bad digital. And so much of that is coming from our foe, the European Union. We're looking into closing off certain parts of our Internet. So we won't loose so many people. And by the way, U.K. can be part of our Internet. If they want to. Brexit is happening, very soon. And U.K. won't be E.U. anymore. They can be U.S.A., a colony of the U.S.A. Like Puerto Rico. Or they can just be their own thing. And do their own thing. Time to decide!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @11:21PM
Oh Boy! Are YOU ever wagging the dog!! colony of the U.S.A... Oh, murrrrder! Little Green men HAHAHA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:59PM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @10:07PM
Looks like you have the Stockholm syndrome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:23PM (3 children)
I was attempting to share a story about killer whales, but keep getting this error:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701101633/new-whale-species [npr.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:28PM (2 children)
No, whales are A-OK as far as I know and that's some random bug. One I also run into regularly.
Usually things work if you start again and repeat the exactly same motions...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @09:34PM (1 child)
Thanks. I tried it twice, then from a different browser and got the same error. I was loading up tor browser to try it but then started asking myself why I cared so much.
(Score: 2, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Friday March 08 2019, @10:06PM
It's a "nice" way of saying, don't be Anommanous, get an account. Or go away. And if you get an account, possibly they'll still tell you to go away. And, they won't say it so "nicely" anymore. Don't forget, "winners never quit and quitters never win." Vince Lombardi (dead of ass cancer -- RIP!!).
By the way, the incredible Killer Whales. I saw that story too. And, I didn't know you were doing the Sub. Trying to do a Sub, and failing badly. So I did a Trump Sub about that one. And there's a 25% chance of that one getting through.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @10:06PM
Give it up or you dont get access. So the law is going to say you dont get to control access, and you cant refuse to serve 'paying customers'? Socialism at its finest.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:42AM (2 children)
Cookies should be treated like notification subscriptions: Users should be allowed to click either "Not now" "Never" or "Ok" for each and every cookie while previewing its content. And the default if someone presses outside the box should be "Not now". Furthermore, there should be a separate interface letting you manage these preferences per domain / site / cookie / whatever.
Some extension come close to this. uMatrix lets you block per-domain or even blacklist by default. Some cookie manager extensions let you preview and remove individual cookies. But nothing I found lets you set a whitelist policy AND manage individual cookies. And since we already have this for notifications, it's pretty clear it's the ad money keeping both Mozilla and Google from doing this.
If it wasn't for the browser providers deliberately making cookies hard to manage, the EU wouldn't have had to interfere.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:58AM (1 child)
I remember when browsers all had settings to ask about accepting EACH cookie and back when you could use that option. It was a huge pain in the ass and you'd turn it off after a while of suffering and that was back in the day with far fewer cookies... plus some sites worked anyway until later years and a great many things will not work at all today... well since the late 90s it was unmanageable.
Cookies are needed because HTTP is stateless.
You do not fix this with cookies; ban them and we'll be back to 1x1 pixel image requests with URLs containing tracking IDs (still used in spam tracking) or other techniques which do not require cookies or JS plus todays fast servers waste CPU on so much more than the load of 90s whole-page generation to insert tracking IDs into every URL (killing your ability to cache anything... not that it matters now with SSL everything reducing caching...)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:41PM
The interface was horrible. It's like how email PGP encryption's / signing's CLi meant no one but programmers used it. We all know it could be done better. But because Thunderbird and Gmail never made a proper built-in solution, we all ended up having our mails read by three letter agencies and ad companies which happen to be Google's and Mozilla's revenue sources...
Point is, they deliberately delivered a shitty broken interface so people won't use the feature and then removed it altogether.
Then we'll have the browsers clear the cache from very small images and limit redirects to same signed domains and forbid fragment. This is all technically doable. you just need to avoid having an ad company code your browser into a telescreen.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @11:24PM
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sugar%20Walls [urbandictionary.com]