"your browser has do not track enabled and therefore we cannot serve you this content"
> # Freedom
> Freedom of movement gives citizens the right to move and reside freely within the Union. *Individual freedoms such as respect for private life, freedom of thought*, religion, assembly, expression and information are protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
>
>[..]
>
> # Human rights
> Human rights are protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. These cover the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, *the right to the protection of your personal data, and the right to get access to justice*.
These basic rights (considered parts of the so called European values) are often infringed by US companies employing extensive surveillance.
Hope I could help.
t. Eastern European assuming the desire for privacy is a universal European value, not only thought in school curriculum.
Care to explain what part is laughable or are you just preaching to some "government bad!" choir?
is this "need for my business model" or "need because we can't send a package without your address"?
Fairly typically applies to small local news websites in the US.
I was imagining a scenario similar to what Facebook is doing in Canada, with messages stating "We cant show you [x] because your government hates free speech" (hyperbole)
https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/
Consent must be "freely given", which means you have not cornered the user into agreeing to you using their data. Requiring consent to data processing therefor excludes consent. You need to be able to say no.
The legal problem with geo-blocking to work around the GDPR is that the error page is usually not GDPR-compliant either. That said for most US sites which apply geo-blocking this is very much a "we'd rather lose that part of the audience than respect anyone's rights" kind of deal. You can roll out the GDPR-compliant treatment for your US users too and it'll be to their benefit. It just means your broken business model that relies on abusing your users' privacy might no longer work.
Note that there are EU sites that do force tracking ads on their users while still being GDPR-compliant by only doing so after the user has consented to it and offering a paid subscription without these ads as an alternative. So it's not just "but we need ads" but explicitly "but we want to harvest your data and do who knows what with it".
Other than those two I don't see how spying on users is a business necessity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720629
It just hasn't been broadly enforced yet.
Websites that refuse to serve be any content due to that law are just yelling at me saying "we don't care one bit for your basic rights for privacy". They have zero intention of sharing anything respectfully and would just sell my data instead, with no accountability whatsoever.
4. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
Consent must be freely given
“Freely given” consent essentially means you have not cornered the data subject into agreeing to you using their data. For one thing, that means you cannot require consent to data processing as a condition of using the service. They need to be able to say no.
It's just like any contractual clause that would sell yourself in indentured slavery or oblige you to make sexual favors is automatically void, since consent to these things is not something you can sell, you can change your mind about these things at any time no matter what contracts you've signed, because they can't be binding for that.
Just like no company can purchase my kidneys. I can donate them, and hospitals can transplant them, no problem. But they are not for sell.
We know what is being done with human organs when it's on the market for profit. Nothing good. Idem with privacy (especially when your personal data encompass other's: contact details, emails, photos, etc).
The argument is that denying doesn't prevent you from acessing the site.
I recall there's precedent for this being legal, but I can't seem to find it. Search engines have really gone down the drain lately.
I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).