Admiral Ads: We value your privacy Me: Reject All Admiral Ads: Some parties cannot be rejected due to LeGiTiMaTe InTeReStS Me: my legitimate interests are PiHole and uBO then 🙃
FYI, tracking based on legitimate interest can be rejected, it just isn’t by default. If you click on “reject all” both tracking based on consent and tracking based on legitimate interests are rejected (at least if Microsoft wants to be in compliance with EU rules on tracking).
The only trackers that can be used even if you click on “reject all” are those that are used exclusively for technical purposes and some very light analytics
at least if Microsoft wants to be in compliance with EU rules on tracking
“if” doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even if the EU comes down on them for this, the fines usually end up being less than the cost of doing business. And it’s not easy to prove in a court in the first place.
I think companies know and understand this, so they just end up doing it anyway and pay the inevitable fine. And that assumes that the fine comes at all - even if they pay a fine for this practice, there are probably so many others that they’re not being punished for that it still makes sense for them to ignore it.
I really hope this is something that gets addressed though, as things are getting absurdly out of hand by this point.
Oh well as long as it’s their legitimate interest, then by all means!
Admiral Ads: We value your privacy
Me: Reject All
Admiral Ads: Some parties cannot be rejected due to LeGiTiMaTe InTeReStS
Me: my legitimate interests are PiHole and uBO then 🙃
FYI, tracking based on legitimate interest can be rejected, it just isn’t by default. If you click on “reject all” both tracking based on consent and tracking based on legitimate interests are rejected (at least if Microsoft wants to be in compliance with EU rules on tracking).
The only trackers that can be used even if you click on “reject all” are those that are used exclusively for technical purposes and some very light analytics
“if” doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even if the EU comes down on them for this, the fines usually end up being less than the cost of doing business. And it’s not easy to prove in a court in the first place.
I think companies know and understand this, so they just end up doing it anyway and pay the inevitable fine. And that assumes that the fine comes at all - even if they pay a fine for this practice, there are probably so many others that they’re not being punished for that it still makes sense for them to ignore it.
I really hope this is something that gets addressed though, as things are getting absurdly out of hand by this point.
The overriding legitimate interest you speak of is so vaguely defined as to make a simple ‘yeah fuck you, that’s why’ pass the filter
In their defence, that is the correct term for this kind of data processing. Legitimate Interest
Good link, thank you.
Still-- Given that “marketing” is an example of a valid legitimate interest, Ima give that a no thanks.
Same here