> 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.
So they have to sit in contemplation for a few hours before going right ahead with collecting data that is not functionally required? Utmost care was taken...
It seems like the interesting question here would be what happens if the thing conditional on consent isn't the provision of service but rather something like waiving payment of a fee.
The reason this hasn't been offered historically is economic. There aren't enough people willing to pay to justify the effort, and the people who are willing to pay are also the best advertising targets, which means the fee would have to be high enough that hardly anyone would choose it.
But what happens now if they put a box on the site that says "pay $75 for this article or consent to be tracked and get it for free"?
EDIT: Am I really being downvoted for requesting a citation to a claim that seems to have no apparent/straight-forward basis in the law? What has this site became?
A newspaper might argue that their business is tracking users so they can show ads and afford journalists, but it won’t hold up.
Of course sites will rather try to pull a stunt like this if the option is shutting down your business directly - but I sure hope regulators force sites to turn to paid content or shut down.
I think it will hold up. Newspapers are a big factor in European the courts would not risk anything against them. Especially not if they might loose a big chunk of revenue.
Q is what will actually happen if the law is interpreted the way I want/think? Newspapers are doing quite poorly already.
Not at all: on the surface, it's the difference between "give me a dollar for a bar of candy" and "here, have a free bar of candy (and I'll help myself to a dollar (or two))".
Beneath the surface, it means that the ad-financed newspaper will have to aggregate their PII in-house (or with the help of carefully vetted partners) into targeting decisions instead of blindly throwing it over a wall to random third parties.
Oh totally! That’s why ads have never been a thing until the internet, and why there have never been print ads, television ads, and ads on the radio. No individual data, no ads, it all adds up.
(/s)
You're free to have ad tracking as long as it is optional and by explicit consent only.
Would that be allowed by the GDPR?
"Intelligence" in snark-validating environments like this means "successful oneupsmanship", and quotient means "upvotes".
But "pay and agree to get tracked, or else your payment will get you nothing", that would be a surefire way to get in trouble.
Also unconsentable would be a carte blanche for passing on the data to undisclosed third parties for unrestricted use and redistribution. This is where many existing revenue models will still have to adapt and where a lot of bad actors will dwindle or shift from grey to deep, actionable black.
I could play and encounter the ocasional cheatet. great f... deal. to this day I still play wii mario kart with some friends and there is still some loser spamming bombs all over the maps because nintendo screwed up (I wouldn't mind games havin root access to a console). we simply couldn't care less. yeah everyone will lose to the loser and switch servers asap, but we still had a good time.
while on the PC every crap you install from steam (which already have root access, expose network ports for who knows what, etc) will also install with root access for what? so people can't cheat on solitaire2000 mmo? I gladly would like all that crap software to run securely in a sandbox and find the ocasional cheater that I will lose to and then proceed to ignore.
heck a blocking list would be better than every single anti cheat code.
I don't even know where I am going with this rant. giving up your entire computer to every crap game is dumb. period.
It would just plain suck. Nobody would have fun, not even the cheaters, when they are going to play against eachother.
The commenter's case was about removing or not allowing it at all, but de facto it's required.
I'm pretty sure non-matchmaked games don't have anticheat features -- it would be dumb, as it is an additional cost.
The commenter specifically complained about giving root access to games, which is a pretty insane idea, security-wise. If anticheating techniques really require root access, then people that care about competitive gaming should have an option to consider this trade-off and turn the anticheating pieces on if they think this has a better reward/risk ratio than not giving root access to a game. It definitely shouldn't be on by default and unconfigurable, though.
In CounterStrike (Global Offensive) this is already the case. The official Valve anticheat is not as intrusive as the anticheat provided by external services like Esea or Faceit. If you choose to use such service they basicly take your system apart. It turns out that in order to get good results this is needed.
I think you underestimate the impact massive cheating can have on a game. Even casual players will leave games that have cheaters in every other lobby.
Tho back then I missed their spin how they are supposedly only targeting "that one specific cracker", they must have come up with that a bit later because on their Reddit they mostly tried to argue "it's only affecting pirates".