GDPR and Cookies

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Seems a fair to suggest that having to pay to reject non-essential cookies is being penalised or suffering detriment?  

It could equally be argued that you're not being penalised for rejecting the cookies, you're being rewarded for accepting them.

i.e. "It costs £x pcm to access our site - but if you accept these cookies we'll give you a 100% discount"

There are plenty of new-sites that are fully paywalled which would support this claim.

A_Geordie

Jenni_D said:

If you do pay to reject non-essential cookies, is that on a per-session basis, or a one-time basis, or something in-between? And if you have paid, haven't they then got even more personalised data than would be accrued via cookies? 🤷‍♀️

Mail, Mirror, Express and Independent roll out 'consent or pay' walls (pressgazette.co.uk)

"Readers who pay for the cookie-free experience on all four websites will still see ads, but are told there will be no sharing of their data with advertisers and they will avoid personalised advertising and only see basic, non-targeted ads."

Jenni_D

Muses ... if you're using an ad blocker, do the advert cookies even get loaded/stored?  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Thank you @A_Geordie very informative post, much appreciated.

Jenni_D said:

If you do pay to reject non-essential cookies, is that on a per-session basis, or a one-time basis, or something in-between? 

Looks like the Mail charge £2.70 a month and says 

We will not use any cookies or other similar technologies to personalise ads that Mail Essential subscribers see on MailOnline. We may still use cookies and similar technologies to provide our service and for other purposes, including personalised content, measurement, audience research and services development.  

So no tracking when you are signed in, they obviously still show ads but they aren't personalised, it's just the tracking aspect you are paying to avoid.  

Jenni_D said:

And if you have paid, haven't they then got even more personalised data than would be accrued via cookies? 🤷‍♀️

Quite possibly but I guess they aren't sharing it in the same way that the tracking cookies do. 

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Seems a fair to suggest that having to pay to reject non-essential cookies is being penalised or suffering detriment?  

It could equally be argued that you're not being penalised for rejecting the cookies, you're being rewarded for accepting them.

i.e. "It costs £x pcm to access our site - but if you accept these cookies we'll give you a 100% discount"

There are plenty of new-sites that are fully paywalled which would support this claim.

Fully paywalled is different, you are paying for a service with money rather than the use of personal data  

Jenni_D said:

Muses ... if you're using an ad blocker, do the advert cookies even get loaded/stored?  

Looks like they can block third party, not sure about first party.

Also looks like Firefox and Safari already block third party and Google are planning to do the same with Chrome (or might have already done so, not sure?) 

Grumpy_chap

A_Geordie said:

It sounds like you are referring to these 'consent or pay' options that have suddenly cropped up in return for accepting non-essential cookies. 


the European Data Protection Board released an opinion. In summary, they said that for most consent or pay options, businesses would not be able to meet the requirements for valid consent, but it is not an absolute prohibition. There must be an assessment made by the business based on certain criteria.

If we assume that some people want the service that is provided by businesses such as the Daily Mail, then the business needs to be funded via some mechanism.

The mechanism can be straight forward pay a subscription.

Any alternative is going to be an acceptance of advertising.  Cookies seems to be the form of advertising that the service providers select to gain sufficient revenue.

If the EDPB think that "consent or pay" does not meet the hurdle for valid consent to cookies, what alternative do they propose?
This may be a case of "being careful what you wish for" as if business are unable to offer "consent or pay" they may simply revert to "pay or not gain access".

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Fully paywalled is different, you are paying for a service with money rather than the use of personal data  

Yes, but paying for a service with the use of personal data is still (arguably) paying for it.  i.e. it's still a paywalled site - there are just two ways to pay.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

A_Geordie said:

It sounds like you are referring to these 'consent or pay' options that have suddenly cropped up in return for accepting non-essential cookies. 


the European Data Protection Board released an opinion. In summary, they said that for most consent or pay options, businesses would not be able to meet the requirements for valid consent, but it is not an absolute prohibition. There must be an assessment made by the business based on certain criteria.

If we assume that some people want the service that is provided by businesses such as the Daily Mail, then the business needs to be funded via some mechanism.

The mechanism can be straight forward pay a subscription.

Any alternative is going to be an acceptance of advertising.  Cookies seems to be the form of advertising that the service providers select to gain sufficient revenue.

If the EDPB think that "consent or pay" does not meet the hurdle for valid consent to cookies, what alternative do they propose?
This may be a case of "being careful what you wish for" as if business are unable to offer "consent or pay" they may simply revert to "pay or not gain access".

The media made money for years before the internet, the difference was that they had to profile their readership as a whole rather than as an individual.

Tracking creates more personalised ads increasing the income they can generate.

I don't think anyone is suggesting banning adverts on newspapers, it's just a question of the tracking of an individual, even if that individual comes without a name attached. 

If pay only was more profitable then the media companies would already be doing it so their current models of making some pay (typically for enhanced features whether that is not having cookies or gaining access to certain content free users can't access) whilst letting others read for "free" is most profitable.

Whether taking away the tracking would then make charging everyone more profitable is hard say, indeed there are no doubt a lot of more independent outlets on the net and the major players charging everyone who wants to read may lead more people to get their news from more than one or two sources and become more well informed.  

Ergates said:

Yes, but paying for a service with the use of personal data is still (arguably) paying for it.  i.e. it's still a paywalled site - there are just two ways to pay.

That's why the question of compliance with GDPR comes up which, as above, seems unanswered at this time.

A_Geordie

If the EDPB think that "consent or pay" does not meet the hurdle for valid consent to cookies, what alternative do they propose?

This may be a case of "being careful what you wish for" as if business are unable to offer "consent or pay" they may simply revert to "pay or not gain access".

Well, the alternative would be subscription based options which already exists but I am not sure businesses would want to go down that route as the sole option because I suspect it would significantly impact on their revenues, especially newspaper organisations who rely on the general public to read their articles.

Personal data is the new form of currency and is very much valuable to businesses who are likely to generate much more revenue than going down the subscription-only methods. There will be people out there who don't really care about giving up their browsing habits in return for access to a website but then again I reckon they probably don't know or fully understand how their data can be used and manipulated to create profiles of that person which could then be sold on to third parties.

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The media made money for years before the internet, the difference was that they had to profile their readership as a whole rather than as an individual.

The main difference is that they used to sell a physical item, so weren't wholly dependent on advertising.  However, people are now used to the idea that websites should be free to use - so the number of people willing to pay for an online newspaper is *much* smaller than the number of people who used to buy a print paper.  (and, obviously, the number of physical papers sold has dropped a lot too).

As extreme as this might sound - this represents a very real problem, and an actual threat to our society.  If/as more independent news sources have to become subscription only, the people will flock to the "free" sites.  And the main way a site can remain free for everyone is if they are funded by some other party.   Some other party who will likely have an agenda that influences what gets reported and how.

i.e.:  A world where the truth costs and propaganda is free is a dangerous world.

But that's an aside from the discussion over GDPR compliance.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said: And the main way a site can remain free for everyone is if they are funded by some other party.   Some other party who will likely have an agenda that influences what gets reported and how.

Or maybe they won't be owned by billionaires off shoring as much as they can but rather someone happy with the ad revenue that can be achieved without tracking