Skip to content

The Current System of Online Advertising has Been Ruled Illegal by The Belgian Court of Appeal. Advertising itself is Still Allowed, but not in a Way That Secretly Tracks Everyone’s Behavior.

Technology
95 58 374
  • From time to time, important news gets overshadowed by other headlines, even though it could have a profound impact on our (online) world. To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something. You end up consenting without really knowing what it is. If you try to figure out what’s going on, you quickly get lost among the often hundreds of “partners” who want access to your personal data. Even if you do give your consent, it’s questionable whether you truly understand what you’re agreeing to.

    This is a win for everyone in Europe, and possibly beyond. [Emphasis mine.] Companies may no longer secretly track your behavior based on “consent” given under pressure. Hopefully, this will not only put an end to these dubious practices, but also to those pesky cookie banners.

    But we’re not there yet. Regulators have ruled the system illegal, and the court’s ruling has now confirmed it. Still, the companies making billions from this model won’t stop on their own. That’s why European regulators must now truly step up: enforce the law and make sure these companies actually comply.

    Regulators try not to get compromised by lobbyists when billions of dollars are at stake.

    I sincerely wish you good luck.

  • I agree with the sentiment, but that harsh of an enforcement method is overkill, the penalty should be a fine, not jail time, because otherwise it could be abused to an insane extent, and 50% will immediately bankrupt pretty much any company immediately, most well structured businesses could probably sustain fines on the order of 40%, I do like your inclusion of percentage based penalties, but realistically with 2-5% fines, any ceo will be removed from their company after the first or second offense, and the company will bankrupt if they sustain more than a couple fines in a year.

    Edit: after doing the math on some actual companies, I believe 2-5% is too low, realistically 5% is the lowest that would actually change business dealings, and 25% will make a company just barely dip into the red. For this reason I think 5-15% should be the goal post.

    Then maybe dont do anything illegal???

    You have to activly track someone, it doesnt just "happen".

  • Then maybe dont do anything illegal???

    You have to activly track someone, it doesnt just "happen".

    “Oops, we are tracking children” is something that has happened many times in recent years, IIRC. Probally still intentional.

  • Then maybe dont do anything illegal???

    You have to activly track someone, it doesnt just "happen".

    I know the human tendency is to think in extremes, but I would prefer to have a system that is as balanced as possible, or at least one that affords adecuate protections to all parties involved.

    The issue I have with the "just don't do anything illegal" argument is that depending on how the illegality is defined, it can be used as a tool for bad actors. Take for instance something like the afformentioned 50% penalty with mandatory jail time for repeat offenders, if I decided that jim's furniture store shouldn't exist anymore, I would only need to find some tiny thing wrong with their data handling, like for instance, assuming this specific hole exists, that they asked for contact info before it's needed for purchase verification. Now they may lose on this minor infraction, and pretty much any small business will die a horrible death without half their revenue. Meanwhile the mega corps will likely find some workaround do to their high priced lawyers, but even assuming we make a rock solid definition, they still just cycle the ceo immediately, because no one will want to be an active ceo when they are one court case from jail.

  • Simple:

    1. make "no" the default answer when asking
    2. massive fine, in the order of 50% of total revenue, the first time you get caught to be paid before the eventual appeal, which if lost raise the fine by 50%. If not paid in 90 days, the CEO goes to jail until it is paid. From now on for 2 years the company must show that it follow the law.
    3. mandatory jail time for the CEO the second time you get caught with no option for parole or any other alternative sentence like a fine or whatever.

    Or any other solution where the eventual punishment cannot be considered just business cost.

    I know, almost impossible... 😞

    Sounds like a plan from someone that has never been lobbied by the advertising industry. Many billions are at stake here. Not many governments can withstand the kind of lobby power this money can buy.

    Would be great to see more crackdown on this though. Random companies are collecting tons of data on people via default opt-in methods.

  • Simple:

    1. make "no" the default answer when asking
    2. massive fine, in the order of 50% of total revenue, the first time you get caught to be paid before the eventual appeal, which if lost raise the fine by 50%. If not paid in 90 days, the CEO goes to jail until it is paid. From now on for 2 years the company must show that it follow the law.
    3. mandatory jail time for the CEO the second time you get caught with no option for parole or any other alternative sentence like a fine or whatever.

    Or any other solution where the eventual punishment cannot be considered just business cost.

    I know, almost impossible... 😞

    1. Please. Need this. Thanks
    2. Would this work in any court of law?
    3. I’ve learned recently while the CEO has a lot of control, they are not ultimately in control. The executive board is. Everyone on the board should be jailed and barred from starting a business for 25 years or the length of the sentence, whichever is greater
  • Then maybe dont do anything illegal???

    You have to activly track someone, it doesnt just "happen".

    IIRC there were hospitals in the US that violated HIPAA by accident because they used the Meta Pixel to aggregate useful information on their website, but which was also sending more information than they knew to Meta. So, it does “just happen”.

    Meta is doing it knowingly though so….

  • From time to time, important news gets overshadowed by other headlines, even though it could have a profound impact on our (online) world. To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something. You end up consenting without really knowing what it is. If you try to figure out what’s going on, you quickly get lost among the often hundreds of “partners” who want access to your personal data. Even if you do give your consent, it’s questionable whether you truly understand what you’re agreeing to.

    I'm not a fan of being tracked so don't get me wrong, but without the money earned with advertising the Internet will look very different and not only in a good way.

  • I'm not a fan of being tracked so don't get me wrong, but without the money earned with advertising the Internet will look very different and not only in a good way.

    I disagree. The online advertising industry needs to shrink, and we should probably break up the monopolies.

    Look at this chart:

    U.S. online advertising revenue from 2000 to 2024

    Growth of advertising correlates with enshittification.

  • From time to time, important news gets overshadowed by other headlines, even though it could have a profound impact on our (online) world. To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something. You end up consenting without really knowing what it is. If you try to figure out what’s going on, you quickly get lost among the often hundreds of “partners” who want access to your personal data. Even if you do give your consent, it’s questionable whether you truly understand what you’re agreeing to.

    but but but how are the corporations supposed to make money off of our data if they can't harvest it? Think of the poor corporations!!

  • I'm not a fan of being tracked so don't get me wrong, but without the money earned with advertising the Internet will look very different and not only in a good way.

    Advertising should be illegal.

    The world would be a better place without it.

  • Advertising should be illegal.

    The world would be a better place without it.

    Ding ding ding

    Advertising has funded many things yet hasn't made anything better, ever.

  • From time to time, important news gets overshadowed by other headlines, even though it could have a profound impact on our (online) world. To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something. You end up consenting without really knowing what it is. If you try to figure out what’s going on, you quickly get lost among the often hundreds of “partners” who want access to your personal data. Even if you do give your consent, it’s questionable whether you truly understand what you’re agreeing to.

    Random side note: how is Belgium to live in and what would it look like to live there right now? Asking for a friend.

    Edit: thanks for al the information. I'll move onto learning more about the country and it's people's history.

  • Sounds like a plan from someone that has never been lobbied by the advertising industry. Many billions are at stake here. Not many governments can withstand the kind of lobby power this money can buy.

    Would be great to see more crackdown on this though. Random companies are collecting tons of data on people via default opt-in methods.

    The crazy thing (to me) is that governments can still get all of those billions without the undue influence. Instead of bribes, they can charge fines, taxes, fees for regulatory inspections, etc. When you write the law, you don't have to just shrug when things are obviously broken.

  • Ding ding ding

    Advertising has funded many things yet hasn't made anything better, ever.

    Demonstrably incorrect. Advertising is responsible for many, many fantastic free services. Without it they wouldn’t be free or wouldn’t exist.

  • I agree with the sentiment, but that harsh of an enforcement method is overkill, the penalty should be a fine, not jail time, because otherwise it could be abused to an insane extent, and 50% will immediately bankrupt pretty much any company immediately, most well structured businesses could probably sustain fines on the order of 40%, I do like your inclusion of percentage based penalties, but realistically with 2-5% fines, any ceo will be removed from their company after the first or second offense, and the company will bankrupt if they sustain more than a couple fines in a year.

    Edit: after doing the math on some actual companies, I believe 2-5% is too low, realistically 5% is the lowest that would actually change business dealings, and 25% will make a company just barely dip into the red. For this reason I think 5-15% should be the goal post.

    If the penalty is a fine, then for most it's just the cost of doing business. I agree that the 50% is probably a bit harsh, but executive boards and CEOs must start facing real consequences like jail time or painful fines that make it impossible to just ignore it - so it has to be based of a percentage of revenue at least in the double digits, not profits or a fixed amount.

  • IIRC there were hospitals in the US that violated HIPAA by accident because they used the Meta Pixel to aggregate useful information on their website, but which was also sending more information than they knew to Meta. So, it does “just happen”.

    Meta is doing it knowingly though so….

    Only an absolute brain dead moron would think using a Meta tracking pixel wasn’t going to exfiltrate information to Meta. Thats the level of negligence with important data that should be punished. If people are scared to collect data, then the correct goal has been achieved.

  • Random side note: how is Belgium to live in and what would it look like to live there right now? Asking for a friend.

    Edit: thanks for al the information. I'll move onto learning more about the country and it's people's history.

    I think you can reap the benefits from just using a VPN and set the country to Belgium?

  • I think you can reap the benefits from just using a VPN and set the country to Belgium?

    Depends on how many sites comply, most will likely block Belgian IP’s due to this.

  • Only an absolute brain dead moron would think using a Meta tracking pixel wasn’t going to exfiltrate information to Meta. Thats the level of negligence with important data that should be punished. If people are scared to collect data, then the correct goal has been achieved.

    They didn't think that using Meta pixel would send absolutely no information to Meta. They were on board with that. They just didn't think it would send sensitive medical information to Meta.

    While I do agree with you, sometimes you have to wonder, "Do these places have anyone in IT at all?"

  • 44 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    I
    Next up: Dos Exploit found in all electric devices in the world! A hacker with physical access can cut the wires.
  • When tech hardware becomes paperweights

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    124 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    138 Aufrufe
    I
    Stopkilling?
  • 6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 256 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    310 Aufrufe
    L
    Maybe you're right: is there verification? Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA. TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language. Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.) Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.
  • 24 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    S
    Said it the day Broadcom bought them, they're going to squeeze the smaller customers out. This behavior is by design.
  • Uploading The Human Mind Could Become a Reality, Expert Says

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    6 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    63 Aufrufe
    r3d4ct3d@midwest.socialR
    what mustard is best for the human body?
  • 478 Stimmen
    81 Beiträge
    381 Aufrufe
    douglasg14b@lemmy.worldD
    Did I say that it did? No? Then why the rhetorical question for something that I never stated? Now that we're past that, I'm not sure if I think it's okay, but I at least recognize that it's normalized within society. And has been for like 70+ years now. The problem happens with how the data is used, and particularly abused. If you walk into my store, you expect that I am monitoring you. You expect that you are on camera and that your shopping patterns, like all foot traffic, are probably being analyzed and aggregated. What you buy is tracked, at least in aggregate, by default really, that's just volume tracking and prediction. Suffice to say that broad customer behavior analysis has been a thing for a couple generations now, at least. When you go to a website, why would you think that it is not keeping track of where you go and what you click on in the same manner? Now that I've stated that I do want to say that the real problems that we experience come in with how this data is misused out of what it's scope should be. And that we should have strong regulatory agencies forcing compliance of how this data is used and enforcing the right to privacy for people that want it removed.
  • 12 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    C
    Sure, he wasn't an engineer, so no, Jobs never personally "invented" anything. But Jobs at least knew what was good and what was shit when he saw it. Under Tim Cook, Apple just keeps putting out shitty unimaginative products, Cook is allowing Apple to stagnate, a dangerous thing to do when they have under 10% market share.