nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Having to pay for privacy

Timfy

I've observed that several websites now only offer the following cookie options, including this example from The Mail Online (UK)

I was under the impression that accepting or rejecting cookies is a requirement under GDPR and other online privacy laws. It's concerning to see how some websites can simply disregard this and infringe upon what should be a fundamental right. Therefore, I will avoid any website that employs such gatekeeping tactics regarding users' basic privacy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058366857/having-to-pay-for-privacy

It's not that straightforward. You may enter the site without cookies but it is, like many newspaper sites, paywalled. You have no inalienable right to free access to the site.

mykrodot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058366857/having-to-pay-for-privacy

I've noticed this on a lot of websites lately too. It's either "accept cookies" or "pay to reject"! How is this allowed ? I thought it a citizens right to be able to decline cookies?

mykrodot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122559631#Comment_122559631

I don't think this the same point you are arguing. On many sites now regardless of whether they are paywalled or not the options are "accept cookies" or "pay to reject"

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058366857/having-to-pay-for-privacy

Quite right.

If you don't like the conditions don't proceed.

I never do and I don't think I miss much.

If you Google the subject of the article you will probably find out all you need to know.

Glaceon

I watched a video on this recently.

https://youtu.be/Yy_bZhKAUgc

Seth Brundle

If the product is free then you are the product!

[Deleted User]

Doesn't this breach the GDPR principle that consent must be freely given and can't be a condition of accessing services?

Yvonne007

If you do not consent, do not enter. It's very simple.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109370#Comment_123109370

The GDPR legal basis of consent isn't very simple at all. It says very clearly that consent must be freely given, and must not be a condition of accessing services.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109393#Comment_123109393

Consent is freely given. You can choose to agree or not. It isn't an employee/employer relationship or some imbalance of power where you agree under duress. There is no undue pressure. To even hint that there is, is absurd.

If you want to read the news on a certain site for free, you agree to the terms. Otherwise, you don't.

Very clear, very simple.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109410#Comment_123109410

Did you miss the bit about "must not be a condition of accessing services"?

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109438#Comment_123109438

Nope. Didn't miss that at all.

I think that the proviso that you have an option to pay in order to access the services should you wish not to abide by their terms is a fair and reasonable alternative.

The ability to access services is still there. It just costs something. The ability to consent is still there.

GSBellew

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109438#Comment_123109438

Except you can access the service without cookies

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109452#Comment_123109452

Your view and my view on whether it's fair and reasonable is entirely irrelevant.

Here's what the GDPR recital says;

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

"When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract."

[my bolding for emphasis]

IANAL, but this really appears to contradict the GDPR approach of consent not being conditional.

Kaisr Sose

The most notorious sites for this are the medical ones like Healthlie, Medicalnews etc owned by Red Ventures. It explicitly blocks access to content if you do not accept tracking etc. They say they are working on a solution (nearly 4 yrs working on it). A solution is there but they won't deploy it because they get less ad revenue.

This statement is bs.

Your privacy is important to us. Any information you provide to us via this website may be placed by us on servers located in countries outside of the EU. If you do not agree to such placement, do not provide the information.

They want to harvest your data and sell it to ad partners. Privacy cannot be important to them where serving personalised ads and tracking is the primary purpose of the site.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123109460#Comment_123109460

But not without paying, which raises the question as to whether consent was freely given;

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1e6eaa89-4304-4e35-8e76-f4fb96d0b65a

"In the EDPB’s Opinion 08/2024, the board makes it clear: if users feel compelled to consent because the alternative (paying for the service) is not feasible or reasonable, then consent is not truly “freely given.”"

Kaisr Sose

Good article

I also understood that access to sites could not be dependent on consenting to accepting tracking, personalised ads etc.

Hotblack Desiato

There is no way any of this is compliant, but even when they were still in the EU the Brits got away with all sorts.