If I got a dollar for every person suckered into buying Samsung products…

But to stay on topic: never! connect your tv to the internet. My LG has been offline for around 5 years now after automatically installing unwanted apps. Since then, I run everything via an Apple TV 4K which works way better than LGs own software does anyway.

I threw out a Samsung TV after they kept asking this shit. They'd provided a single button to accept but literally 200+ decline buttons, one for every partner, that I needed to scroll through a click with my remote. Fuck Samsung. Will never buy any Samsung product ever again.

Do you have a better system fix than what EU is trying to do?

> asks me if it's okay they share data with their over 200 partners. L

What happens if you say no?

Legitimate interest does not exist and is a loophole in the law which should be killed. You can challenge it but the authorities who should handle that are grossly underfunded.

noyb calls these schemes "Pay or Okay"[0] and has filed complaints[1]. However, as far as I can tell no one has been forced by a court to stop.

---

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-report-how-companies-make-you...

[1] https://noyb.eu/en/project/forced-consent-dpas-austria-belgi...

Europe doesn’t enforce the law. Cookie banners are similarly pointless.

Completely agree, the solution to so many privacy invasions and problems in tech is just because ads are allowed.

Would love to see a society where ads are not allowed. Cannot really see any downsides personally, but I’m sure many will claim ”how will companies survive?!” Hard to see it would lead to the collapse of either companies or society, but maybe of capitalism as we know it (which I think given the current state of the world would be such a bad thing).

Half of the people in the world use facebook/ig every month and revealed preferences show they have no interest in banning ads

I think it's closer to a bartender mixing you a drink with 30 (hundred) different poisons and hoping you get tired of saying "no" every time.

The rest of the world would be happier if websites geofenced the cookie consent banners to EU IPs only and just left the rest of us alone, with any combination of cookies/tracking.

I read the complaint and it seems to have nothing to do with the reject all button and is only about transparency and informed consent. They state that you cannot reasonably read all those privacy policies and thus you also cannot give informed consent.

At least that is how I understood it

Probably both.

If I understand it correctly giving informed consent for over 1700 tracking partners of a single page isn't realistic. You as a single person cannot be expected to truly understand what it is you are agreeing to when you click accept.

It's the definition of "informed consent". Can I actually go through a couple of thousand 3rd parties and confirm that their policies all conform to my data handling requirements?

The issue is that even if you click "Accept" there is no reasonable way to infer that the user has given informed consent, because becoming informed would likely take days or weeks.

As such the conditions for data sharing are not met and it is likely to be illegal.

You can't number every limit and corner case. You come with precise terms and give a chance for people to defend their case in court.

We'll now see if "thousands of partners" is considered as a good match for "informed consent". Doesn't mean there is a need for review, unless the legislator is not happy with the interpretation that will be provided.

> The designers of GDPR would have not expected thousands of partners sharing the data collected in a single click.

The designers of GDPR (and most other EU regulations) expect businesses to behave like adults, not like petulant children.

Why wouldn't GDPR apply to apps? It's not a cookie banner requirement, it is a regulation for data protection because companies were (are) selling harvested personal details and saving it for eternity.

Having personal information isn't always a bad thing, it would be really annoying if I had to fill out a form with my bank every couple of years to tell them my address, which hasn't changed and is a legitimate interest. Amazon telling everyone that I bought some athletes foot cream is not.

GDPR absolutely applies to apps, it applies to all manner of electronic and non-electronic means of data collection and processing.

The G stands for General, and the EU means it.

GDPR is a General Data Protection Regulation. It applies to everything.

10 years. It's been in force for 10 years. The tracking/ad industry has really managed to brainwash everyone into thinking it's about cookies (even though GDPR doesn't even mention cookies except as an example of tracking)

> Not sure GDPR applies to apps though.

GDPR applies to we the people and the organizations who hold our data. Doesn't matter if it's morse code on paper strips.

If we can dictate warnings on tobacco packages, we can dictate the wording on consent banners to not be "We care about your privacy" but instead "We want to track you for profit".

When you try to maximize ad revenue, you add multiple advertising SDKs to your website, each of which can often do live bidding with hundreds of ad/data brokers

You can usually check the ads.txt file on a website to see which companies are allowed to bid for ad space on there. For example, for dict.cc, the website in question:

https://dict.cc/ads.txt

The ones labelled "RESELLER" will probably share your data with even more ad companies.

I am one of those.

It generally goes like this:

When we launch a site it is seldom more than perhaps Hotjar, Google Analytics, and two-three other services connected.

And then through the years product managers and other stakeholders gets sold on adding LinkedIn, Instagram, Meta, and so on. So we add those.

Next a specific service ”to better track the sales funnel from in-store salespeople to the web” gets added. Then another ”analyse the data quality versus bounce rate” tracker gets added. And so on.

Before long the developers have streamlined the process of adding new scripts/analytics/trackers that editors can add them on their own, and that is when the floodgates open.

two main sources

analytics: A/B testing, "if x does user click y"?, unique page visits, etc.

ads: integrating with an ad provider comes with hundreds of trackers, because they want to - know if you bought a product after clicking on an ad - show you targeted ads for shoes after you googled shoes - build a profile of you (age, gender, location, profession) to show relevant ads across different websites

Likely has little relationship to what is actually in the page. They had to do GDPR, didn't or couldn't spend a lot of time on it -- or had an especially conservative corporate counsel -- and ended up just getting a list of every company they've ever worked with, for any reason, "to be safe".

For most companies this can easily be thousands of partners, and going through that list and figuring out exactly who might get data in reality, through every possible permutation of workflow, is a horrendously expensive proposition.

You might be surprised how many well-meaning regulations leave even the best-intentioned implementers in an impossible situation.

Advertisement.

No, you just hit the deny all button, or wait for GPC to become a legally required thing.

That’s the most malicious take in the whole thread. Good job!