GDPR complaints against Google’s deceptive practices to track user location | Hacker News Reader

GDPR complaints against Google’s deceptive practices to track user location

beuc.eu

140 pointsonuralp21 comments

Speaking of deceptive practices, has anyone noticed that Chrome's "Allow Chrome sign-in" option does not do anything? Regardless of the state of this option, when you sign into Gmail, you are also signing into Chrome.

This option for disabling unintended signing in into the browser was promised after there was a major brouhaha on Hacker News. Google added the button as promised... except it doesn't do anything. Very disturbing.

>User: Hey does anyone notice that when they put their hands on the stove it still burns even though the stove says "OFF"? Guess I'll keep buying this brand of stove!

>Stove company: Well, the people are complaining again, but they keep using our stoves, so no reason for us to change.

Good. Dark patterns are explicitly forbidden by the GDPR.

The fact that politically-motivated HN users can downvote legitimate comments to the point where they become hidden (basically squelching alternative views) is also deceptive. It makes it appear that everyone is all for GDPR

I have "showdead" on but can't see any of those or are you talking about another topic?

See my previous comments which have disappeared from the discussion.

I hope all the anti-regulation people (libertarians) will be able to kill these laws. GDPR (and similar laws in debate) have way too broad of power, and really, privacy should be solved at the individual/company contract level.

The real root of the problem is that EULAs and privacy terms aren’t usually clear, and many users are uneducated about how contracts work and what they actually mean. Plus, it’s too easy for users to click through a EULA without knowing that they’re signing their privacy away.

I think people really underestimate how much progress in software has been indirectly funded by these ‘free’ services. And, we all know that few people want to actually ‘pay’ for their internet usage. The indirect subsidies by the adtech industry pay most of our salaries, although many try to deny it.

I disagree, i think the real problem is not that the EULA's are vague or too long, but that often times people dont have any other choice but to use that software/service, and are forced to accept the EULA because of it.

Right, because people don’t actually want to pay for anything.

> but that often times people dont have any other choice but to use that software/service, and are forced to accept the EULA because of it.

What? When have you ever been forced to use software X? Even with google, msft, apple, etc. you can always just not use their products. It might be inconvenient for you i.e. you have to buy a real map to figure out how to get from A to B but that's completely different than forced coercion.

Well, EU ruled citizens can not be forced to give up their privacy to use a product/service. Google, msft, apple etc can play by the rules (which Google clearly does not according to this research) or accept the consequences.

I go to a university that uses office 365 for email/document sharing etc. I have friends who go to universities that use the equivalent Google products. I went to a high school that used Google classroom for a variety of assignments.

As you might guess, the legal interpretation of "not being forced" will be more nuanced than "theoretically the guy could abandon a normal life in society to not have to use this".

For example, not being able to use a smartphone is generally not considered a sensible state for a citizen to be in. Even only being able to choose from one offering, because the other is criminally bad in terms of privacy, is generally not considered sensible.

I'm saying "sensible" here, with which I mean that it's not in the interest of the population as a whole for individual persons to feel impeded like that. Often enough rulings don't come down to right or wrong, legal or not, but rather to this type of sensible.

EULA's are worthles pieces of digital paper in any EU court.

"EULAs are worthless in any EU court."

privacy should be solved at the individual/company contract level

Almost 30 years since the birth of the web and no sign of this happening yet. Maybe it's time for another approach

Or, maybe people should educate themselves on how contacts work.

Should retailers be forced to accept product returns for customers who decide not to learn arithmetic?

If the vast majority of customers don't know arithmetic, then yes, that's exactly what happened. Laws are a UX problem, not a theory problem. If most of your users end up getting deceived, you can't say "BUT IT WAS ALL RIGHT THERE IN THE SMALL PRINT, IT'S NOT MY FAULT THEY DIDN'T READ IT!".

Like, this is literally how everything else works.

Deceived? It’s not deception, it’s user laziness. Laws shouldn’t exist because people are lazy.

If so called “dark patterns” (subjective) are deceptive then you could argue most of commerce is deceptive. If I go to a retail store and am guided toward a product that I don’t necessarily need, is that deception? If a car salesman convinces me to buy his mostly useless extended warranty, is that deception? Where is the line?

Most commerce relies on information asymmetry. People are just picking on the tech industry because they’re highly profitable.

Should retailers be forced to accept product returns for customers who decide not to learn arithmetic?

Arithmetic is easy. Wading through 20 pages of legalese so I can share cat pictures isn't.

"I hope all the anti-regulation people (libertarians) will be able to kill these laws. GDPR (and similar laws in debate) have way too broad of power"

It's not the Googles and Facebooks of the world which need protection.

I hope they get seriously and royally fucked for doing this shit. Somehow, I suspect they'll weasel themselves in to a slap on the wrist, if that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com