Comment

Comment on Youtube's Anti-adblock is illegal in the EU

InternetTubes@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

This isn’t the solution people think it is. The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site. That is, assuming Alexander Hanff, the one carrying on this narrative since 2016, is correct and interpreted the response correctly. In Article 5 of the 2002/58/EC there is a second paragraph that states the following:

Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications and the related traffic data when carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.

I’m no lawyer, but I tell you who has them in droves, Google and YouTube. I’m not sure how a two page reply from the EU commission to his request telling him Article 5 applies really helps the guy out if Article 5 also includes the means by which YouTube is allowed to run adblocks. Yet, assuming Alexander Hanff is right, again, goto start of comment, so it seems to me it is damned if it is right, damned if it isn’t right.

source

Sort:hotnew top

QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site.

GDPR does not allow this.

source
- InternetTubes@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I was going to reply, but lemmy.world admins decided to ban my account there suddenly and delete my complete comment history because of some criticism to their terms of conduct (hence why the comment you replied to is empty in some instances)... luckily I noticed as I was about to respond to your reply, saving it in the process when it didn't seem to go through. Without further adeu, and keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert:
  
  That's true for cookies, but I'm not so sure it is true for this. I could be completely wrong, so I've tried searching for more answers, and from what I've gathered, it's not even something that all EU states agree with. According to EDPB Guidelines there is something known as "permissible consent". What you are referring to is discussed in this point:
  
  In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made
  conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information
  already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user (so called cookie walls)
  
  But when you are talking about ads, you aren't just talking about information stored or access to it, you are talking about a commercial transaction, between the person paying the service to put up the ad so that someone views it, who in essence is paying a part of your subscription. This can still exist even when you've refused targeted marketing, so only permissible incentive (seeing ads that may be more relevant to you) is lost in that regard, meaning you still have a genuine choice. But I'm no expert if that's how the law applies.
  
  It really gets nebulous, and I'm not seeing a clear answer in the EDPB guidelines, but it does say this in one of the examples it gives:
  
  As long as there is a possibility to have the contract performed or the contracted service delivered by this controller without consenting to the other or additional data use in question, this means there is no longer a conditional service. However, both services need to be genuinely equivalent.
  
  The only obligation on behalf of YT might be that the user is aware of and agrees to the contract and the collection of personal data, "accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment" for the purpose of fulfilling contractual obligations.
  
  In short, it's not that cut and dry. It's the reason why you can't access Netflix without paying. It's the reason you have a cheaper Netflix service if you accept ads.
  
  source
- krellor@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That doesn't appear to be correct.
  
  Executive Summary
  • Ad blocker detection is not illegal, but might, under a strict interpretation of the
  ePrivacy Directive be regulated and require the informed consent of users.
  
  • Depending on the technical implementation of ad blocker detection, such detection may be out of scope of the consent requirement of the ePrivacy Directive, or fall within an exemption to the consent requirement. But the legal situation is not very clear.
  
  • Publishers who use ad blocker detection should update their privacy policy to
  include use of ad blocker detection scripts.
  
  • Publishers may want to err on the side of caution and obtain consent for the use of ad blocker detection scripts to preempt and avoid any legal challenges.
  
  • Publishers could obtain consent by slightly modifying their existing compliance mechanisms for the use of cookies as the possible new consent requirement
  emanates from the same law mandating consent for the use of cookies.
  
  • Publishers could use two practical solutions to request and obtain consent for
  the use of ad blocker detection: a consent banner or a consent wall.
  Publishers could also make use of a combination of the two to complement
  each other.
  
  [Source] (https://iabeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20160516-IABEU_Guidance_AdBlockerDetection.pdf)
  
  source