▲ 58 ▼ Guardian not Respecting GDPR? (media.piefed.zip) submitted 4 months ago by FundMECFS@piefed.zip to c/gdpr@sopuli.xyz 33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (17 children) What rule is this breaking? permalink fedilink source hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] turdas@suppo.fi 19 points 4 months ago (8 children) The one where rejecting cookies must be as easy as accepting them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] manualoverride@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago (7 children) It is just as easy, you just can’t read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 16 points 4 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (5 children) The cookie legislation under GDPR is probably the most poorly thought out thing the EU has ever enacted, I hate cookies, but cookie pop ups have made everyone miserable. I’m not spreading misinformation because it’s been challenged and every news site does the same thing, many do far worse. It’s not illegal. What should be illegal is reading cookies for anything other than your own site. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 10 points 4 months ago (7 children) I believe you should be able to “reject all” as simply as “accept all” for cookies according to the GDPR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (6 children) I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily. The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 child) No there isn't. There's a "reject all and subscribe" which is not the same thing as a pure "reject all." The law doesn't allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay. I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal. In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children) Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] turdas@suppo.fi 19 points 4 months ago (8 children) The one where rejecting cookies must be as easy as accepting them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] manualoverride@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago (7 children) It is just as easy, you just can’t read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 16 points 4 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (5 children) The cookie legislation under GDPR is probably the most poorly thought out thing the EU has ever enacted, I hate cookies, but cookie pop ups have made everyone miserable. I’m not spreading misinformation because it’s been challenged and every news site does the same thing, many do far worse. It’s not illegal. What should be illegal is reading cookies for anything other than your own site. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] manualoverride@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago (7 children) It is just as easy, you just can’t read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 16 points 4 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (5 children) The cookie legislation under GDPR is probably the most poorly thought out thing the EU has ever enacted, I hate cookies, but cookie pop ups have made everyone miserable. I’m not spreading misinformation because it’s been challenged and every news site does the same thing, many do far worse. It’s not illegal. What should be illegal is reading cookies for anything other than your own site. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] voxel@feddit.uk 16 points 4 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (5 children) The cookie legislation under GDPR is probably the most poorly thought out thing the EU has ever enacted, I hate cookies, but cookie pop ups have made everyone miserable. I’m not spreading misinformation because it’s been challenged and every news site does the same thing, many do far worse. It’s not illegal. What should be illegal is reading cookies for anything other than your own site. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (5 children) The cookie legislation under GDPR is probably the most poorly thought out thing the EU has ever enacted, I hate cookies, but cookie pop ups have made everyone miserable. I’m not spreading misinformation because it’s been challenged and every news site does the same thing, many do far worse. It’s not illegal. What should be illegal is reading cookies for anything other than your own site. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] voxel@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) I spent 20 years making compliance systems for OFCOM and later GDPR for the major UK banks. I promise I know more than 99.99% of the population on this subject. The guidance on consent-or-pay is here and the link to report the Guardian when you find the specific infringement is here Let us all know what you find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] voxel@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child) Perhaps you should have led with that… as a UK based newspaper they probably only answer to the ICO. If you want to use a service in the UK you probably have to play by UK rules… pushing the issue may only result in the Guardian geoblocking the EU. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 10 points 4 months ago (7 children) I believe you should be able to “reject all” as simply as “accept all” for cookies according to the GDPR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (6 children) I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily. The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 child) No there isn't. There's a "reject all and subscribe" which is not the same thing as a pure "reject all." The law doesn't allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay. I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal. In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children) Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (6 children) I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily. The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 child) No there isn't. There's a "reject all and subscribe" which is not the same thing as a pure "reject all." The law doesn't allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay. I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal. In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children) Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 child) No there isn't. There's a "reject all and subscribe" which is not the same thing as a pure "reject all." The law doesn't allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay. I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal. In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay. I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal. In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FundMECFS@piefed.zip [S] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children) It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children) Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (2 children) Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you're trying to say permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation. No need for ad hominem attacks here permalink fedilink source parent
