That doesn’t work under the GDPR. It must meet the conditions for consent, locking users out of a service by requiring unnecessary data collection is illegal. Please don’t spread misinformation.
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.
It obviously is. Your understanding of the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive seems very flawed. Cookie banners aren’t necessary, and are in many cases illegal, that has already been confirmed. Blame the website providers.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What rule is this breaking?
The one where rejecting cookies must be as easy as accepting them.
It is just as easy, you just can’t read the article.
That doesn’t work under the GDPR. It must meet the conditions for consent, locking users out of a service by requiring unnecessary data collection is illegal. Please don’t spread misinformation.
See: Art. 7(4) GDPR
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.
It obviously is. Your understanding of the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive seems very flawed. Cookie banners aren’t necessary, and are in many cases illegal, that has already been confirmed. Blame the website providers.
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.
This is about the UK GDPR. I was talking about the (EU) GDPR and ePrivacy Directive.
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.
I believe you should be able to “reject all” as simply as “accept all” for cookies according to the GDPR.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you’re trying to say
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