this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
1171 points (99.6% liked)

Europe

6007 readers
1901 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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 [email protected]. (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 @[email protected]

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

meanwhile meta stealing terrabytes of copyrighted literature to train their AI on, meanwhile "step in the right direction" video game megacorporations yoinking your product license you bought because its not profitible, meanwhile nintendo shutting down emulators without any base other than having money over passionated indie emulation devs, meanwhile google using google fonts on desktop on literally every website or apps on your phone to bypass this sht anyway.

way too little way too late, these people see these cute upcoming fines as very profitable and non harmful business expenses.

[–] [email protected] 177 points 6 days ago (5 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!

[–] [email protected] 61 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

It's basicallly just a label they beed to slap to suddenly be avle to circumvent some forms of non-consent. There's also overriding legitimate interest (just as vague btw so it covers everything).

In other words, legitimate interest is a form of rape (what with the circumcenting consent and all)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] skisnow 61 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago (2 children)

The irony made me exhale a burst of air from my nose before closing the page, never to return.

Basically every cookie acceptance agreement popup is just a 404 to me. No webpage has important enough information anymore for me to sign any kind of agreement. It's absurd. If you passed by a shop and wanted to go in and purchase something, but a clerk stopped you at the door and made you sign a fucking agreement that store would die in a month.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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

Fuck every site that tries to pull that shit.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It's not banned. Meta isn't allowed to use that option, because it has monopoly power. IE in the view of the court, you can't avoid using Meta. For any ordinary site, there is always the option to refuse either and leave.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Also, require its html tag to have an attribute "data-legal-reject" or something like that so we can have browsers auto reject all that shit - while keeping necessary ones.

Better yet, attach this at the protocol level. "X-Cookie-Policy: ImportantOnly" or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago

Yeah, there’s no reason why this should be anywhere except the browser level.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (4 children)

You wonder, why do they not just make it illegal to use cookies at all (other than for legitimate purposes like loggin in).

Who actually wants to accept?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As much as i would love to see that, youll be burning down a multi-billion, if not trillion, worth market.
Also, idk if i want the alternative of cookie tracking to be used as much as cookie tracking. Scary stuff

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (14 children)

youll be burning down a multi-billion, if not trillion, worth market.

Oh no

Also, idk if i want the alternative of cookie tracking to be used as much as cookie tracking. Scary stuff

Here's an idea, you outlaw that also

We have been in the wild west of the internet the last 20 years or so, and you wonder when we're finally going to actively police it

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As usual, this should have been the responsibility of browsers, not individual websites.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fuck you pieces of shit.

Go track this:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days 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 14 points 5 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Not just "as easy" but "at least as easy". The assumption should be that the user does not consent. And there have also been a few cases where the courts have - quite rightly - rules that "pay for privacy" offers aren't good enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago

This and Consent-o-matic

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 days 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!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

While we're at it, can we also talk about things that look like chat notifications, but exist only to draw your attention? Those are misleading as fuck and IMO should be ruled out as well.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί