Today I filed a formal complaint against #YouTube with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner for their illegal deployment of #adblock detection technologies.
Under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC YouTube are legally obligated to obtain consent before storing or accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.
In 2016 the EU Commission confirmed in writing that adblock detection requires consent.
That’s not for you to say if it’s “fully compensated” or not. They say “here is the service we provide, where is what we want from you”. If you reject any part of what they want from you, it’s immoral even if it’s not illegal.
I am not obligated to sit dutifully with the volume up when ads play on my tv.
Nor am I obligated to allow ads to load within my browser.
They send the data they want me to display, down to every element on the page. It is fully within my rights to choose which elements are allowed to load on my computer.
And I wont be fuckin guilt tripped that the billion dollar company will make a fraction of another billion less dollars this quarter over my decisions to do so.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the typical terms of service or privacy policy even mention that you, as a user, have the power to reject tracking cookies, tracking pixels, etc. via your browser configuration and third party tools? As far as I know, the YouTube ToS and Privacy Policy also mention these things. I just tried to read it but they seem to have broken it up into a sprawling multi-site multi-page document where I can’t find the legalese to ctrl+f and pore over.
Can anyone find these documents, so I can read through them please?
There are other ways to control the information Google collects whether or not you’re signed in to a Google Account, including:
Browser settings: For example, you can configure your browser to indicate when Google has set a cookie in your browser. You can also configure your browser to block all cookies from a specific domain or all domains. But remember that our services rely on cookies to function properly, for things like remembering your language preferences.
Device-level settings: Your device may have controls that determine what information we collect. For example, you can modify location settings on your Android device.
Has anyone said you have to stay there with the volume up? Or even watch your screen? You’re just full of bad faith.
Also, I didn’t say illegal, I said immoral, which is what you accused them of being. You’re not following their ToS, and you’re trying to make yourself feel better about it.
My argument for that is “yesterday I ate some salad”. It’s just as relevant to what you just said because once again, it has nothing to do with what’s being said.
The whole chain of conversation is about immorality, and you talk about illegality. They are orthogonal concepts. They have nothing to do with one another.
So something legal is moral, and something illegal is immoral? That’s your mature vision of things since you’re trying as hard as you can to link both?
Then I guess civil forfeiture is moral, but driving 1km/h above the speed limit is immoral then… /s
Also, you’re trying to fish for any makeshift argument you can muster, even if they’re bad. If you just look at the basic situation: someone is asking X to provide Y. You’re not willing to pay X to get Y. Taking Y from them without paying X is immoral, period. We’re not talking about an essential good that only them can provide. It’s not about insulin being 800$. (Which is legal, so I guess by your definition it’s moral…)
That’s not for you to say if it’s “fully compensated” or not. They say “here is the service we provide, where is what we want from you”. If you reject any part of what they want from you, it’s immoral even if it’s not illegal.
I am not obligated to sit dutifully with the volume up when ads play on my tv.
Nor am I obligated to allow ads to load within my browser.
They send the data they want me to display, down to every element on the page. It is fully within my rights to choose which elements are allowed to load on my computer.
And I wont be fuckin guilt tripped that the billion dollar company will make a fraction of another billion less dollars this quarter over my decisions to do so.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the typical terms of service or privacy policy even mention that you, as a user, have the power to reject tracking cookies, tracking pixels, etc. via your browser configuration and third party tools? As far as I know, the YouTube ToS and Privacy Policy also mention these things. I just tried to read it but they seem to have broken it up into a sprawling multi-site multi-page document where I can’t find the legalese to ctrl+f and pore over.
Can anyone find these documents, so I can read through them please?
Edit:
I found it: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en#intro
Has anyone said you have to stay there with the volume up? Or even watch your screen? You’re just full of bad faith.
Also, I didn’t say illegal, I said immoral, which is what you accused them of being. You’re not following their ToS, and you’re trying to make yourself feel better about it.
TOS are neither the law, nor are they vetted for legality by anyone working in law enforcement.
TOS very often contain straight up illegal clauses; they are largely meaningless.
My argument for that is “yesterday I ate some salad”. It’s just as relevant to what you just said because once again, it has nothing to do with what’s being said.
Thats such an incoherent response.
If you think it had nothing to do with the convo, maybe you shouldnt be chiming in on adult conversations until you can follow them.
The whole chain of conversation is about immorality, and you talk about illegality. They are orthogonal concepts. They have nothing to do with one another.
If a company is writing illegal requirements, there is no moral backing for following them. They arent allowed to ask it of you.
Go get your sippie and blankie. This conversation is too mature for you to handle.
So something legal is moral, and something illegal is immoral? That’s your mature vision of things since you’re trying as hard as you can to link both?
Then I guess civil forfeiture is moral, but driving 1km/h above the speed limit is immoral then… /s
Also, you’re trying to fish for any makeshift argument you can muster, even if they’re bad. If you just look at the basic situation: someone is asking X to provide Y. You’re not willing to pay X to get Y. Taking Y from them without paying X is immoral, period. We’re not talking about an essential good that only them can provide. It’s not about insulin being 800$. (Which is legal, so I guess by your definition it’s moral…)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA