Amazon: " Protecting the privacy of our customers has always been a top priority for Amazon. "
Yes, there's 'protecting' the privacy of your users. This, however, is about 'respecting' the privacy of users.... you're doing it wrong.
Google and Amazon have been slapped with €100m and €35m fines respectively after France’s data privacy watchdog declared both companies had placed advertising cookies on people’s computers without their consent. The National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) announced on Thursday that both internet goliaths had …
Use an ad tracker/blocker and a program like ccleaner on your PC. As for mobile devices, I always use a browser and add/tracker blocker instead of dedicated apps where possible and delete cookies often. I’m sure this probably doesn’t go far enough but it’s at least something to try to combat the annoying cookie infestation.
It's OK using trackers and blockers if you understand them - and even then it can be a pain in the neck Lots of sites don't work properly - or at all - even with Firefoxes enhanced tracking protection, never mind ad and script blockers. Whenever I go home and look at my mum's PC I don't know how she puts up with it, but if I installed any blockers she'd have to call me every day to fix inaccessible sites.
Google et al won't stop doing this until there are real sanctions - like jail time.
As I said, at least it’s something and I’m aware it isn’t enough. I understand blockers can disrupt site operability which is a huge pain. I, at least, seem to be doing OK with these settings.
Yes we need proper sanctions but until (if ever) that happens, blocking and deleting ads and cookies is really all we have, whether you’re tech savvy enough to use them or not.
I have a friend like that. I've been educating him on web security for almost twenty years now. He uses Firefox with an adblocker and NoScript, like I taught him, except that, a few weeks ago, he admitted that he had disabled NoScript.
It annoys him because he cannot access his usual sites likes he likes to.
WTF ? I explained how you can just Allow the sites you work with. Where's the problem ?
I think the problem is that many people just can't be bothered to think things through - at least, not where computers are concerned. It annoys them and <i<they don't want to know</i> .
I spend my life on computers. It's my job, and my hobby. I breath bytes. I cannot fault other people who like other things.
I can, however, feel dismayed by it.
Agreed, but t's still a pain. Even if you sort some sites out to work they can fail again when, for example, they suddenly require Amazon ad services to run properly or, as has been the case recently, the cookie consent script is blocked by default and then the site jumps to a new page which doesn't have the cookie consent script so it can't be whitelisted.
As for educating people - for some it's too difficult. Even after dozens of support calls with my family they still don't know what Finder, file, application, extension, window, dock, address bar, menu bar........etc. mean. The conversations are a bit like the Golden Shot - move the cursor down, down, bit more - ok, can you see the blue smiley face........ Like most of the (older) population their computers are just another tool to get mail, follow family on Facebook and buy stuff from Amazon and they neither know nor care how it works under the hood.
> It annoys them and they don't want to know
Precisely! Not that IT is always easy to grasp, especially for older people who literally come from another age, but there is, on top of that, a marked refusal to even try. For various, not always very convincing reasons (mostly some variant of "I'm too old / it's too strange" and "I'm no techie").
The tick box isn't about installing NoScript, it's about not getting infected. How many of your IT colleagues have experienced malware problems due to not following your golden rule. Funnily enough, just because you accept that virtually every web page breaks and has to be manually fixed, doesn't mean everyone else does.
I would suggest the risk of malware scripts running on legitimate sites is next to zero, so NoScript doesn't need to be disabled. The issue then becomes how to get users to avoid malware sites - educating them about clicking on links in emails, and checking a link goes to the site it claims is relatively easy for lay people, let alone IT professionals. And using malware blocking DNS is another simple option in the security toolbox for preventing visits to known infected sites, see:
I think that they are... €135m is not exactly spare change. However, it's also related to the severity of infringement; in this case the problem is that they are telling people about the cookies, but the explanations are "not clear enough". Considering nobody reads the explanations anyway, I'd say this is hardly the stuff of high treason.
> €135m is not exactly spare change
Only if you assume they will pay it...
But they obviously won't, they will stall and appeal, and then again, and in the end they will settle on €50k, to be paid after the pigs have landed again.
An objective assessment of the revenue raised by these breaches of cookie laws would have been useful. Whatever that turns out to be, triple it for the fine. Objective assessment, not the company's own assessment. That will require legal authority to subpoena all relevant details, with extremly heavy penalties and executive jail time for non-compliance.
The penalty cost must greatly exceed the gains from breaking the rules, otherwise fines are (yet again) just another cost of doing business.
What I'd like to do is fine the EU for continually wasting my time with cookie selection pop ups on every new site, and frequently reoccurring on the previously visited sites.
I already block the cookies I don't want, the constant nagging about cookies is worse than the privacy violations of the cookies, as we know they manage to work around blocking by browser fingerprinting anyway.
What about the people who don't block the cookies they don't want because they don't know how to block them at the browser or even know why their web browser has biscuits with lumps of chocolate in them?
Saying that browser-based blocking is the solution, for those clever enough to find the setting, also perpetuates the opt-out model and gives Google et al licence to use Flash local shared objects, web preferences, browser fingerprinting, etc... as they see fit to track you, while a few select people find a blocker for each individual thing that Google's using to track you and the rest get tracked whether they like it or not.
Exactly - in my admittedly non scientific checks with ordinary people (ie not techies), not one of them has ever given two hoots about cookies, tracking etc.
They do however get sick of these stipid things popping up and interfering with their experience. I am a former techie, and I fully agree with them.
Can we have extensive which blocks these stupid messages!?
Not overlooking that fact that many on sites unless you click the "Accept All" button it will hound you every time you visit. This seriously pisses me off. Even permitting the "Functional Cookies" does not allow the site to save the fact you don't want all the rest of the shite. Then there are the sites that the only way to use them is to "Agree" to a shedload of different cookies nearly all related to advertising and tracking. When faced with these now I always try to find another source first.
Sorry, but why do you even bother reproducing canned PR responses?
I for one would appreciate if, for the sake of brevity and clarity of understanding, you would just write something along the lines of "An Amazon spokesperson gave The Register the standard PR response in these cases", or "The Register contacted Amazon and did not obtain any substantial response".
Seriously, if there is a legitimate journalistic reason I would like to know.