Anything shy is begging companies to dark-engineer patterns around obtaining it.
https://pasteboard.co/rrL2bpmiE6Zq.png
And most you can't reject
Even more hilarious. pageboard itself said 847 partners!
I.e. all companies really want to be in the business of tracking customers, because they can repackage derivative products and increase their revenue.
So the "subscription" option ends up experiencing a lack of support, mysterious technical issues, underinvestment, etc.
End result, customers don't choose it, which businesses use to lobby for further eroding mandates.
You can't force a company to provide and support a product they don't want to. You can force them to turn one off.
The first reg this happens in will I think make billions the world over realize this is what the template of all opt-in online regulation has to be and will hopefully change the world.
If you boil the lobster all at once, the huge ad industry will ensure such regulation never passes.
If you gradually increase regulation, then it stands a change of actually passing, and eventually accomplishes the same goal (even if over a longer timeframe).
Getting everyone to agree that a mandatory, regulated prompt is required is step 1.
Me? I just use cash everywhere and now the guy at harbor freight knows I'm the guy who says 'I dont have a cell phone number'.
Contracts you know, they need to benefit both sides.
I'd like auditable data. I should have an easy way to discover everyone with my data (including things like IP logs), see how it's used (at the level of source), and have it destroyed.
Opt-in doesn't fix anything. Only by making these practices illegal (and aggressively enforcing the law) can this be stopped.
To expand on this more - I feel like laws requiring companies to keep a "custody chain" of personal data at every transfer step would be relatively un-controversial. Sure, I'd rather do away with personal data being able to be bought and sold entirely, but an easy first step is "massive fines for any company that doesn't carefully track exactly which entity touched the user's data".
they don't even say "your call^H^H^H^Hlocation will be recorded for quality purposes"
They can still just lie though.
This guards against the case where a processor transparently updates their ToS to share your data with someone you do not consent to.
GDPR proves this wrong. Most people click OK/accept even in front of relatively clear information (to be fair sometimes the options are "accept for you to be tracked and shared with 'our partners' or pay a subscription/fee", which is an easy choice for many.
"well, I'm not sure if they're going to start collecting or using my data, because I don't actually really KNOW that or the extent of everything, just an email from them with a vague update to an equally vague privacy policy that I apparently implicitly agree to if I don't discontinue using their service."
Just like a manufacturer/seller on say, amazon shouldn't be able to revise their product with cheaper quality under the same model number (and yet it happens all the time), changes to the agreement of a service should be treated as a new service.
Whatever the solution, it should be a big enough deal that it cannot be implicitly agreed to, and clear enough language (maybe vetted by a third party review of the agreement) to communicate to all users, what is at stake and how, to which third parties, etc.
"Ok" then "Customize" followed by a bunch of checkboxes to disable cookies while the "accept all button" is where typically "OK" would be and the "reject all" is often labeled something else that isn't clear.
This is also not often remembered on future visits so you end up doing this dance every time you visit that site.
"Most" may be correct, but given how annoying those banners are I would not read too much into that.
What an easy choice to be nagged at every new website.