undefined

points

[-]

It's not even compliance. You're required to make consent and decline require equal effort. A large percentage of them make it much easier to consent.

Not to mention the large number of "legitimate interest" exceptions that are absolutely not justifiable.

The main problem with the legislation is its lack of teeth and enforcement.

by IgorPartola10 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Is too. They could have thought through the law they were writing and predicted malicious compliance. Or written a stronger law. Or revised the law when they spotted malicious compliance.

by kittomic8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I don’t understand why that’s considered legal under GDPR. How can consent be express and informed when it would take 30 minutes just to identify each entity your data is being shared with?

In fact the law even specifies “no pre-ticked boxes” but every banner always has “accept all”. And it’s 50/50 to see “reject all” even though it is a requirement that denying must be as easy as accepting.

They should pay a bounty for reporting non-compliance.

by vkou8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> In fact the law even specifies “no pre-ticked boxes” but every banner always has “accept all”.

That's not entirely true. Websites that don't actively try to fuck over their users (because their purpose is not shoving third party ads at you, it's providing information about/a platform for their company's product) often provide a modal with two buttons:

'Accept' 'Decline'.

This, IMO, meets both the letter and the spirit of the law. The funny thing is, for any website actually doing that, if you click 'Accept', your data will likely only be used to improve it.