this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
741 points (99.7% liked)

Europe

5949 readers
1667 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

The "Accept all" button is often the standard for cookie banners. An administrative court has ruled that the opposite offer is also necessary.

Lower Saxony's data protection officer Denis Lehmkemper can report a legal victory in his long-standing battle against manipulatively designed cookie banners. The Hanover Administrative Court has confirmed his legal opinion in a judgment of March 19 that has only just been made public: Accordingly, website operators must offer a clearly visible "reject all" button on the first level of the corresponding banner for cookie consent requests if there is also the frequently found "accept all" option. Accordingly, cookie banners must not be specifically designed to encourage users to click on consent and must not prevent them from rejecting the controversial browser files.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 24 points 5 hours ago
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 29 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Can we ban the "Pay to have privacy" option as well.

Fuck every site that tries to pull that shit.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 4 hours ago

Pay or OK is banned.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Make it opt-in where you must purposely click somewhere. And just hide that away where they have their unsubscribe button.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 24 points 10 hours ago

afaik the wording of the gdpr says that rejection must be as easy as acceptance

[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

A disgusting behavior that I've seen in Spain is for websites to direct you to their subscription page if you say you don't want to be tracked, either you pay for the content or you don't get any content. Apparently the Spanish courts have deemed this legal.

[–] rinze@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago

If you use uBlock Origin, add the following rule:

* privacy-center.org * block

This kills 99 % of the "accept or pay" modals, an you can still access the page normally.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I recently started to use "I still don't care about cookies". So far so good.

[–] Localhorst86@feddit.org 7 points 4 hours ago

The issue about that extension is this:

When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do).

It will often just accept the cookies as is.

[–] ewo@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 11 hours ago

This and Consent-o-matic

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Cookie banners need to piss off forever. You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

what about color scheme cookies?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 hours ago

You may set some functional cookies only if I log in.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

websites should be allowed fun and whimsy

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 42 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

The kind of stupid shit societies have to invest money in. Don't get me wrong, it's good news, it's just baffling that money had to be invested in order to get these bastards to do the civil thing.

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 17 points 15 hours ago

'its baffling in a capitalist society, corporations do everything they can to squeeze the most money out of their users with zero regard for the users wants or needs, and do whatever they can to skirt legal obligations that protect consumer privacy and security'

Yeah. I'm baffled.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 138 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

We and our 908 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device.

Absolutely, we need a Reject All button!

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 49 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (4 children)

And it should include this mysterious 'legitimate interest', or whatever it is called - always on by default in 'my choices', even though no one seems to be able to explain what this means. How can I make an informed consent on something that vague?

On the other hand, not 'Reject All', but 'Reject All except functionally necessary' (which should be precisely regulated by the law), otherwise there will be no cookie to remember our 'reject all' choice, which I am sure the corpos would happily use do discourage us from clicking that.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 16 hours ago

Rejecting cookies without asking every time requires a cookie and that is clearly legitimate interest. The problem with legitimate interest is that it's not well defined enough and then you have companies claiming that Adsense personalization is an absolute necessity for their website.

[–] sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 20 hours ago

That shit makes me so mad. What the fuck is legitimate interest if not the cookies which are set anyway to make the site function It’s just purposefully misleading.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 17 hours ago

the "functionally necessary" cookies, which are served by the site itself (e.g. not a third party), do not require a banner at all. if you have no third party cookies, you can do entirely without it.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago

I'm sure "functionally necessary" already means we share your data with everyone because we setup a system where the local page state is managed by third parties that we are selling your data to.

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I have also seen on some websites that you have to pay them through subscription if you want to reject all cookies

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that's illegal AF. Report them?

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 3 points 20 hours ago

Will do when I encounter any more

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 6 points 20 hours ago

Literally saw one with 1300+ the other day, thought I was going insane 😳

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 3 points 20 hours ago

Have to individually reject each and every fucking β€œpartner.”

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 31 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck you pieces of shit.

Go track this:

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 6 points 16 hours ago

I usually just do this:

close window button

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 47 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 21 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Heise Group, you greedy cocks.

Here's a version of that article that doesn't deliberately ~~break~~ skirt as far as legally possible EU privacy law: https://archive.ph/ZTt3K

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Heise is not breaking EU law with this. The law states that there must be an option to reject all cookies, whether it's a paid option or not is up to the site.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

~~This is no longer true thanks to a ruling by the European Data Protection Board.~~ Hang on, I was misreading. I believe there's been a recent ruling, but this one ain't it.


EDIT: See pages 39 and 40. ~~Here, it seems as though no "equivalent alternative" is provided under these criteria. It seems to me like consent-or-pay is heading toward an eventual ban, but Heise makes it clear on their website you can consent, pay, or leave – i.e. not an "equivalent alternative" to my mind.~~


EDIT 2: Okay, upon reading these criteria further, it seems like this isn't a violation of EU law but that it's reaaaally close and that the EDPB really hates consent-or-pay as a loophole and wants it to die as soon as possible. If not breaking the law, it's still an ethical nightmare, so the first line of my comment stands: "Heise Group, you greedy cocks."

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 6 points 17 hours ago

so the first line of my comment stands: β€œHeise Group, you greedy cocks.”

Fair enough :D

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago

A friend of a friends relative's 2nd cousin mentioned that pornography sites have been surprisingly compliant about this, already.

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 20 hours ago

FINALLY! I was wondering how long it'd take for people to act upon the fact that Permission prompts have become THE biggest digital grift. The answer: way too fucking long!

[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 2 points 19 hours ago

Next up: No more allowed" followed by "No banners allowed, setting cookies is only even possible after user account creation"... please?