Tagged with: “consent”
Written by Lilly Smith on Fast Company.
“[N]ew research suggests that only 11% of major sites are designing these so-called consent notices to meet the minimum requirements set by law.”
“So are design patterns that prevent the user from making an easy and clear privacy decision examples of simply poor design, or are these design patterns intentionally nudging users to share data?” “It has to be intentional because anyone who’s actually read the GDPR in an honest way would know that it’s not right,” says [David] Carroll. “Both the design and the functionality of them are very manipulative in favor of the first- and third-party collectors where possible.”
“It’s a design problem,” Carroll says, “but it’s a business model problem first and foremost.”
Related: as Tatiana Mac points out, we need to stop using “dark pattern”. For the practices in this particular article, I prefer “deceptive pattern”, “malicious pattern” or “anti-consent pattern” 🙃
Written by Nila Bala on The New York Times.
The problem with these tests is twofold. First, parents are testing their children in ways that could have serious implications as they grow older — and they are not old enough to consent. Second, by sharing their children’s genetic information on public websites, parents are forever exposing their personal health data.
Dr. Louanne Hudgins, a geneticist at Stanford, cautions parents to consider the long-term privacy of their child’s health information collected through home genetic kits. Their children’s DNA and other health data, she has warned, could be sold to other companies — marketing firms, data brokers, insurance companies — in the same way that social media sites and search engines collect and share data about their users.
The sharing of DNA results on open-source genealogy databases to find long-lost relatives poses another privacy risk: When parents share their children’s DNA on these sites, they are effectively sharing it with the world, including with the government and law enforcement investigators.
Written by Natasha Lomas on TechCrunch.
“Europe’s top court has ruled that pre-checked consent boxes for dropping cookies are not legally valid.
Consent must be obtained prior to storing or accessing non-essential cookies, such as tracking cookies for targeted advertising. Consent cannot be implied or assumed.”
“Sites that have relied upon opting EU users into ad-tracking cookies in the hopes they’ll just click okay to make the cookie banner go away are in for a rude awakening.”
Written by Chris Gilliard on Fast Company.
“Privacy for marginalized populations has never been, and will never be an abstract. Being surveilled, whether by private actors, or the state, is often the gateway to very tangible harms–violence in the form of police brutality, incarceration, or deportation. And there can be more subliminal, insidious impacts, too.”
“The idea that surveillance would be used as an assignment on those with no options for consent speaks to how broken our ideas about consent have become, trivializing what to many people is a life and death matter of their lived existence.”