
GDPR complaints against Google’s deceptive practices to track user location - onuralp
https://www.beuc.eu/press-media/news-events/gdpr-complaints-against-google%E2%80%99s-deceptive-practices-track-user-location
======
petilon
Speaking of deceptive practices, has anyone noticed that Chrome's "Allow
Chrome sign-in" option does not do anything? Regardless of the state of this
option, when you sign into Gmail, you are also signing into Chrome.

This option for disabling unintended signing in into the browser was promised
after there was a major brouhaha on Hacker News. Google added the button as
promised... except it doesn't do anything. Very disturbing.

~~~
craftyguy
>User: Hey does anyone notice that when they put their hands on the stove it
still burns even though the stove says "OFF"? Guess I'll keep buying this
brand of stove!

>Stove company: Well, the people are complaining again, but they keep using
our stoves, so no reason for us to change.

------
fmajid
Good. Dark patterns are explicitly forbidden by the GDPR.

------
afpx
The fact that politically-motivated HN users can downvote legitimate comments
to the point where they become hidden (basically squelching alternative views)
is also deceptive. It makes it appear that everyone is all for GDPR

~~~
Krasnol
I have "showdead" on but can't see any of those or are you talking about
another topic?

~~~
afpx
See my previous comments which have disappeared from the discussion.

------
afpx
I hope all the anti-regulation people (libertarians) will be able to kill
these laws. GDPR (and similar laws in debate) have way too broad of power, and
really, privacy should be solved at the individual/company contract level.

The real root of the problem is that EULAs and privacy terms aren’t usually
clear, and many users are uneducated about how contracts work and what they
actually mean. Plus, it’s too easy for users to click through a EULA without
knowing that they’re signing their privacy away.

I think people really underestimate how much progress in software has been
indirectly funded by these ‘free’ services. And, we all know that few people
want to actually ‘pay’ for their internet usage. The indirect subsidies by the
adtech industry pay most of our salaries, although many try to deny it.

~~~
Pi-ena
I disagree, i think the real problem is not that the EULA's are vague or too
long, but that often times people dont have any other choice but to use that
software/service, and are forced to accept the EULA because of it.

~~~
hashr8064
> but that often times people dont have any other choice but to use that
> software/service, and are forced to accept the EULA because of it.

What? When have you ever been forced to use software X? Even with google,
msft, apple, etc. you can always just not use their products. It might be
inconvenient for you i.e. you have to buy a real map to figure out how to get
from A to B but that's completely different than forced coercion.

~~~
Sylos
As you might guess, the legal interpretation of "not being forced" will be
more nuanced than "theoretically the guy could abandon a normal life in
society to not have to use this".

For example, not being able to use a smartphone is generally not considered a
sensible state for a citizen to be in. Even only being able to choose from one
offering, because the other is criminally bad in terms of privacy, is
generally not considered sensible.

I'm saying "sensible" here, with which I mean that it's not in the interest of
the population as a whole for individual persons to feel impeded like that.
Often enough rulings don't come down to right or wrong, legal or not, but
rather to this type of sensible.

