Honestly, I think what they offer might be the best solution you can hope for: one button "I don't care", one button personalize and in it one button "disable all". People who don't care and just want the site to work aren't lost, people who care aren't lost, people who want to personnalize aren't lost. If you care, it's two click total to disable everything, and it's very easy to find (the bright right "deny").
Should they have "refuse all" along with "accept all" ? Yes.
Should "refuse all" be the default and thus features be disabled ? I'm not entirely sure (see what they list in the personnalize, it's youtube videos and twitter cards ...).
In terms of the intent of the law (give control to the user and make it easy to opt out), I would say they are doing fine. As opposed to all those shitty websites where you can't find how to disable, or you have to disable a bazillion things by hand.
Refuse all needs to be the default, because that is the law. Even when it comes to the intent of the law (which is to give control to the user and also not make lazy users "accidentally" give up all of their right to privacy) they are not doing fine. They're doing better than their peers, who have made even more malicious choice dialogs.
Not only that, but you don't even need to click the 'accept' button, just navigate elsewhere on the site. What about screen readers or custom CSS? I doubt this is informed or specific consent.
Of course, these are different magnitudes of offences, but they do indicate how insidious and normalised are the patterns established by companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and co.
I think that the Cnil should lead by example and I suspect that a lot of people see the irony. If they show what can be done, or even better, open-source a working solution, that could disprove the “everyone does it” argument which… hasn’t exactly proven sturdy to even minimal ethical testing so far.
nolok|7 years ago
Should they have "refuse all" along with "accept all" ? Yes.
Should "refuse all" be the default and thus features be disabled ? I'm not entirely sure (see what they list in the personnalize, it's youtube videos and twitter cards ...).
In terms of the intent of the law (give control to the user and make it easy to opt out), I would say they are doing fine. As opposed to all those shitty websites where you can't find how to disable, or you have to disable a bazillion things by hand.
krageon|7 years ago
afandian|7 years ago
Of course, these are different magnitudes of offences, but they do indicate how insidious and normalised are the patterns established by companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and co.
blub|7 years ago
The rest either have an "accept all" or "pre-ticked accept" or a tiny, misleading "more options".
bertil|7 years ago
KingMachiavelli|7 years ago
aarongray|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
jkaplowitz|7 years ago
But yeah, it's bad optics.