Exclusive: Privacy experts warn pop-ups will cost if cookie consent expires
multiple data privacy Advocates criticized plans in the uk To replace cookie consent pop-ups with an “opt-out model,” which they believe will do more harm than good.
in one E-mail exchange with TechRadar ProJohn Callas of the Electronic Frontier Foundation described the plans as inherently flawed. “A good privacy system needs to revolve around opt-in rather than opt-in,” he said. “The responsibility is askTo get permission from someone before conducting a survey. ,
These concerns were echoed by a spokesperson for privacy software company Brave, who acknowledged that the current system is in need of improvement, but warned that the new proposals would remove an important safety net. “This may cause users to opt-in to privacy-degrading practices. We believe the proposals are likely to cause more tracking and privacy damage, not less,” he told us.
UK data collection reform
The UK government earlier this week announced plans to replace the cookie consent pop-up with a new system that is expected to improve the user experience while preserving the ability to shield against invasion of privacy.
Under these new schemes, website owners will be able to deploy cookies without obtaining explicit consent from visitors, but only the “non-intrusive” varieties that do not feature “micro-targeting of ads”.
The cookie consent banner will be replaced with what the government describes as an “opt-out model for consent”, allowing web users to pre-define their data collection preferences through a new “browser-based solution”.
“We want to create a framework that empowers citizens through the responsible use of personal data. Our reforms provide individuals with greater clarity about their rights and the way they determine access and benefits to their own data. will provide understanding.” Report Explained.
However, both EFF and Brave have criticized several aspects of the proposal. Calas, for example, takes issue with the characterization of some cookies as required and others not; There should be no such thing as an unnecessary cookie, he argues, and certainly not one that may have been deployed without permission.
“Part of the issue has been brought up in the official website itself, [which] There’s a pop-up on it that has an opt-out for unnecessary cookies. If they are unnecessary, they should not be used,” he said.
“That’s why I think it should be opt-in rather than opt-out… if [cookies] To benefit someone who is not us, I think they should get our permission first.”
Brave, meanwhile, is concerned with the limited scope of improvement, which treats cookies as the exclusive means by which companies collect web activity data.
“The privacy loss of online tracking is not limited to cookies, so we would like to understand what governments and regulators have to offer, especially with regard to browser-based signals,” the company said.
“We would welcome the latter as long as there was a clear and precise agreement on the default setting for the signal and its specific purpose and how it would be enforced in law. We remember the unfortunate failure of the Do Not Track (DNT) signal .
Lawmakers’ position is unreliable, mired in a bind by the need to balance the usefulness of the Web, the interests of businesses, and consumer rights. However, it appears that the latest reform proposals raise as many questions as they answer.
TechRadar Pro The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) has been asked for a response on these concerns.