An outright dishonest cookie prompt, where "reject" or "manage choices" aren't even shown on the first screen.
I imagine the company behind this site is hosted at the US. There are not many places one can still do this.
I imagine the company behind this site is hosted at the US. There are not many places one can still do this.
It is sadly perfectly legal afaik. Nobody is entitled to your content without agreeing to some terms. Luckily, archive.is works very well. Wish there were more alternatives.
You can also access any site in the google cache with prepending "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:", that will you show you the website like the google bot saw it.
For example github.com would become "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%..."
It is still worth to try, but many sites already prevent this.
[1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/...
"Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance."
Since GDPR clearly does not consider ad-tracking cookies as "necessary for the performance of service", this should be against the spirit of the law. I guess it's up for the BfDI and relevant state-level commissioners to prosecute this and I don't know what is their stance, but this type of behavior does not seem compliant.
Of course, there are many other types of non-compliant behavior. Most cookie banners out there make rejecting cookies harder than accepting, and there are many cookie walls that block you from accessing the site at all until you dismiss them. These are clearly non-compliant, but prevalent. Even oversized or disruptive banners that goad you to click "I Agree" in order to dismiss them, cannot be considered as "freely-given consent".
Which of course requires an account, which requires a cookie, which is then tied to your payment details, and therefore far less private than ads, but that's GDPR for you. A nonsensical law in which nobody involved thought anything through.
What they can't do is say "no tracking, no service".
If we could turn tracking I to a banned way to earn money from free visitors, I think we’d all be better off. This is not how gdpr works today.
Legitimate interest is things like a legal requirement to maintain PII because of the services offered.
[0]: https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/d...
You basically cannot enter if you don’t agree or have payed.
Example: https://t3n.de
So for at least that site, it appears that all of the 'protection' is provided by javascript, and if one does not allow the javascript to execute, one receives the article content. There also does not look to be much in the way of ads with the javascript blocked as well.
No it isn't.