I never consent to give my data away or being tracked, but how do you deal with so called legitimate interest? I tried several times to untick them but it is a long list (in fact at the bottom there is a “vendors” link with even longer, much longer list. It took me 10 minutes to get to the bottom of it once).

My questions: -how can we trust these so called legitimate interests when they are self defined by companies whose business model relies on your data? -how can we find out what these legitimate interests are and what data it collects? -are such companies controlled in any way? -is this kind of consent form compliant with EU gdpr? (normally opt out is to be as easy as opt in, and there is no “refuse all” for these so called legitimate interests. -what are your strategies against such sites tracking you? Or am I just being paranoid?

The sheer amount vendors is daunting, the Internet really turned into crap

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I thought legitimate interest meant you were legitimately interested in giving up your data to those vendors???

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your browser cannot block server-side abuse of your personal data. These consent forms are not about cookies; they’re about fooling users into consenting to abuse of their personal data. Cookies are just one of many many technological measures required to carry out said human rights abuse.

  • Holli25@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Legitimate interest is a way for the vendors to not need your confirmation. In general, your right to privacy is valued against the vendor’s right to operate. The most often used example is advertisement: in general, vendors are allowed to advertise, as they want to operate and sell their products. But you have a right to your data (e.g. mail adress, home adress, interests…). So courts have to value what is more important. Another example that most people would agree is that clubs want to show what happens in the club, so they publish pictures from their activities (interest of club to show they are active vs personal right to your image). As not every case goes to court, most vendors see their interest as more important and interpret “legitimate” interest rather loosely. So in general, the idea of legitimate interest is compliant with the GDPR, although I believe most sites use it too liberal.

  • nelson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Legitimate interest is just bullshit.

    Can I have your:

    • wallet
    • emails received
    • telephone number
    • pin code
    • visa card numbers
    • browser history
    • home address
    • dates you won’t be home
    • alarm code

    I too am legitimately interested in this data.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Use a script obfuscator. I’ve been using one for about a decade now and it’s extremely easy to tell when companies are doing illegal spying. Looking at YOU ebay. My full name is not GKDSLGFJDS ZKGWKDSF, you fucking assholes. Enjoy the cement shoes when the advertisers you sold to find out that information is nothing but strings of randomly long random characters.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If it won’t let me untick all but the essential cookies easily - close tab, move on.

    Recently I realised that some “reject all” options still don’t reject the “legitimate” bullshit, so I now avoid those sites too (and no, I don’t trust that extensions that claim to reject all for me will actually reject all).

    I’ve got better things to do with my time than scrutinise these cookie pop ups and/or go through lengthy lists individually unticking options. Fuck that noise - don’t have minimal respect for users? Then I’m definitely not providing you any of my data (the sites that make it the hardest rarely hold information you can’t easily find elsewhere)…

  • admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the exception to prove the rule that the other interests are definitely illegitimate. This is the website telling you that they give away your data for illegitimate purposes.

    It’s not a surprise. We knew this was true. But seeing it’s spelled out like this is a little galling.

    Illegitimate: not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules

    The website is basically admitting that they’re using your data maliciously, intentionally, by having this distinction.

    • pirate526@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      While you’re right conceptually, this isn’t what the wording means in terms of consent dialogs. Legitimate interest means they can assume, legitimately, that you have an interest in aspects of the site (by you being there) that require X cookies, basically. Ie their product is providing functionality they can assume you’re interested in just by being there, and they’re “pre approving” the tracking/storage for that functionality.

      I concur that it’s rubbish and used almost always in a manner that reeks of illegitimacy.

  • Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s no such thing as legitimate interest. Reject what you can, block everything else with adblockers.

  • BoisZoi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    OP:

    posts about tracking and not consenting to give data away

    also OP:

    uses Google Chrome

  • voxel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    IANAL, but if you’re in the eu, iirc legitimate interest is not legal basis for data processing but they may still store it for later use if you ever agree to one of these

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your choice of words was absolutely terrible. There is no such thing as a decent defense of rape. Now, an effective defense in our busted legal system? That’s a whole different story. But “decent” does not apply in cases of sexual assault and violence. Ever.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the person is innocent until they are proven guilty. Also it is entirely possible they were innocent

          • forrgott@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your reply is completely unrelated to what I said. There is no such thing as a decent defense for raping someone. If they didn’t rape anyone, good! If they did, that is an indefensible act by its very nature.

            I made no comment at all on whether or not any specific individual is guilty or not. So I’m really confused what your point is here…?

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are saying that they don’t set a defense. No matter the crime, you deserve defense. No one, not even sexual predictors, deserve to be stripped of constitutional rights. Such things also are related to prejudice.

              • forrgott@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                No. Read it again. I never said allegation. I never referenced court proceedings. I said the act of rape is indefensible.

                If you commit rape, there is no “decent” defense. If you didn’t, then my comment doesn’t apply. Simple as that.

                There is no excuse for sexual violence, and there never will be.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen judges let offenders off light on worse arguments. Unfortunately.

    • jwt@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If it’s a legitimate interest, the browser has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”