One thing I hate is how publishers try to twist GDPR into meaning something different, when the actual law is extremely clear.
Here is how 'consent' is defined.
So no, you cannot say: "By continuing to use our site you will automatically consent." That is simply not a thing.
Here is how 'consent' is defined.
So no, you cannot say: "By continuing to use our site you will automatically consent." That is simply not a thing.
It's the same about controllers vs processors. It's the data controller that people give consent to, and the processors act on behalf of that controller. What this means is that no processor can ever claim to have the right to do something on another site without a new consent.
If you give your consent to tracking on one newspaper to include FB tracking, then FB cannot claim to have the right to track someone on another site, arguing that you already gave your consent once. People didn't give their consent to FB. They gave it to the newspaper.
The law around this is pretty simple. But somehow, publishers keep arguing that it's pretty hard to figure out.
No, it isn't. It's all very clear.
No, it isn't. It's all very clear.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
