A new EU Privacy Ruling proposal would effectively kill all forms of spam unless people opt in.
The privacy ruling would also allow consumers to use ad-blockers, but publishers will be allowed to withhold content from consumers who do.
Please consider EU Proposal on Ad Blockers Welcomed by Publishers.
Media companies will be allowed to ban customers who use ad blockers under new online privacy rules proposed by the European Commission.
More than 200 million people are estimated to use ad blockers, depriving publishers of revenues but relieving users of often intrusive adverts.
[In the ruling, people can use ad-blockers, but publishers can withhold content from those who do.]
Publishers welcomed the move. Paul Lomax, chief technology officer of Dennis Publishing, a UK publisher that owns The Week, said: “It is vital that we retain the right to protect our content from those who wish to circumvent that value exchange.”
Brussels rolled back plans to introduce “privacy by design” that would have required all browsers such as Firefox and Google’s Chrome to automatically use a “do not track” setting, stopping online advertisers from following people around the web.
Instead users will be asked whether they want to opt in to such tracking. Advertisers fear that many will not opt in to tracking, in a change that would upend industry practice.
Smaller advertisers complained that these new rules would favour the likes of Facebook and Google, who have the scale to gather permission from users more easily. “A few global tech companies already in possession of immense data pools would be able to circumvent the nature of the law anyway,” said Stevan Randjelovic from the European Association of Communications Agencies, a lobby group that represents advertising and media companies.
In a bid to reduce the number of so-called “cookie warnings” — the pop-ups on websites in the EU — the commission will allow browsers such as Firefox and Chrome to offer blanket settings that would approve all cookies. Likewise, simple cookies used for purposes such as measuring traffic on a website would not require permission.
Anti-Spam Measures
Diving into the Privacy Ruling we find a heavy dose of anti-spam rules consumers will like.
- All electronic communications must be confidential. Listening to, tapping, intercepting, scanning and storing of for example, text messages, emails or voice calls will not be allowed without the consent of the user. The proposed Regulation also specifies when processing of communications data is exceptionally permitted and when it needs the consent of the user.
- Confidentiality of users’ online behaviour and devices has to be guaranteed. Consent is required to access information on a user’s device – the so-called terminal equipment. Users also need to agree to websites using cookies or other technologies to access information stored on their computers or to track their online behaviour. The proposal clarifies that no consent is needed for non-privacy intrusive cookies improving internet experience (e.g. cookies needed to remember shopping cart history, for filling in online forms over several pages, or for the login information for the same session). Cookies set by a visited website counting the number of visitors to that website will no longer require consent.
- Processing of communications content and metadata is conditioned to consent. Privacy is guaranteed for content of communication as well as metadata – for example who was called, the timing, location and duration of the call, as well as websites visited. Metadata linked to electronic communications have a high privacy component and need to be deleted or made anonymous if users did not give their consent, unless the data is needed for billing purposes.
- Spam and direct marketing communications require prior consent. Regardless of the technology used (e.g. automated calling machines, SMS, or email), users must give consent before unsolicited commercial communications is addressed to them. This will in principle also apply to marketing phone calls unless a Member State opts for a solution that gives consumers the right to object to the reception of voice-to-voice marketing calls, e.g. by registering on a do-not-call list. Marketing callers will need to display their phone number or use a special prefix number that indicates a marketing call.
No-Spam
The big ruling is number 4. No one will opt in for phone or email spam. The US has “do not call lists”, but they do not work. I typically get 2-4 trash calls a day despite being on a no-call list.
I suspect such lists will work in the EU.
All in all, this is a mixed ruling that will please no one in entirety. But consumers, especially those badgered with phone solicitations, will get welcome relief.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“Listening to, tapping, intercepting, scanning and storing of for example, text messages, emails or voice calls will not be allowed without the consent of the user.”
Ha – that’s just comedy gold.
What a joke.
As they say in high places, “Collect it all!”
“The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872
As of January 1st it is now law. Anyone using a UK ISP now has all their activity recorded.
Orwell’s “1984” has become a “how to” manual.
I’m pretty sure, GCHQ, the “M’s” etc would not worry about breaking the law, even if they have been given an ‘opt-out’. Same as here in the US, if any such law was created, the NSA, FBI, and other alphabets, et al would all be given an opt-out so not much would change.
We’d still have our various govts spying on us. The only thing wrong in 1984 was the date. and the frightening thing is people don’t care. Imagine how this emboldens govts to further intrude into our daily lives. Freedom is dying in front of our very eyes.
Buried apps can achieve everything needed from logging data, audio capture, camera on/off etc.
The only defence is a crappy GSM with minimum function, no GPS, no camera but the voice and text traffic can still be monitored and location via signal strength to basestation.
Get in a car in the UK and the very extensive ANPR network will be able to track you. Same for credit and loyalty card usage – place, time etc – even in real time if you are “in demand”.
Spam is nothing.
Yeah, the UK is THE SURVEILLANCE STATE!!! Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc etc would have loved to have had that tech to spy on their people. Last time I read 75% of the worlds cctv in the UK. The UK has never valued peoples rights and freedoms, usual excuse the cameras made us safer, then why doesn’t the UK have the worlds lowest crime rates? Deafening silence……… Other reasoning “If you’re doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about!” Orwellian indeed! The UK, a neo-police state. I was glad to get the hell out.
Hmmmmmm – you forget that every mobile device with a camera can be a CCTV.
Watching you too, careful with the new smart TV’s. Channel being watched logged too.
Intersing point is the UK is small enough to lead. Where we go you will all follow in time.
Oh – Autonomous Vehicles – do you realise it can all be logged/tracked. Easy to monitor occupancy too.
There is no privacy with new tech.
Off topic:
Orwell was horribly off target for reasons regular Mish readers should understand.
1984:
The power of centralized media is in free fall. Rather than authoring truth by owning the medium, Modern Big Brother is playing wack-a-mole with millions (soon billions) of continuously self publishing citizens. Even the US president has abandoned curated media for first person communication.
Animal Farm:
No horses were worked to death in the making of today’s world. Rather, horses are being denied yokes and forced to pasture. The pigs kowtow to various conflicting species that no one else knows or even sees.
I disagree that no horses are worked to death. As layoffs happen, companies force people onto reduced-wage salary, and raise the hours through the roof. That’s a sign of horses being worked to death.
You should say, instead: ” I haven’t noticed any horses being worked to death. ” That way, the statement is actually (and correctly) about you.
In my humble opinion, spammed email and phone calls are a huge annoyance, and I am happy to see a push back. In fact, this is the best news I’ve seen in days!
Before we hired a service to scrub spam, I was receiving between 600 to 1000 junk emails a day, and had to add “phone call screening” to the job description of the person at the front desk. It is not unusual to receive more than a dozen calls a day from computer generated messages, such as “Michael about your Car Warranty”, trade magazines “renewing subscriptions”, and random groups looking for money.
I can only hope that those responsible for this spamming are also on the receiving end as well! Good riddance!
“Do Not Call” Do Not Work!
Three cheers for the nanny state on this one.
It works in the Netherlands, I’m getting no calls, like zero calls last year… Companies doing phone campaigns are fully aware of it and respect the “call-me-not register”.
Publishers can already withhold content from adblockers and guess what! No government ruling has been needed!
Same with cookies – they could be blocked before the stupid EU ruling that required all websites to have a notice saying they use cookies.
The no spam thing is a good idea but the rest of it simply isn’t needed – the EU should stop trying to regulate the internet, as it does with everything else.
…and withholding content from adblockers reduces eyeballs in an eyeball dependent industry. Its a free market race between adblocker tools and adblocker-subversion tools.
That is right for the adblockers.
I disable everything ( flash etc.) and get relatively clean pages. Adblocker on brings up denial of access on some sites already, when switched on.
The EU cookie warning is the most annoying and deceptive. You have a large banner that does not leave until you AGREE.
Mail spam is rare on a personal email, gets filtered. You can simply whitelist contacts or add filters. Worst is phone spam, which I despise. With international coms. so cheap and flexible don’t see how they will stop it all being launched from outside EU.
Data storage is good, will continue though but not be used openly legally. How much traffic routed outside EU also.
Tapping – guess who has the most information to hide. Possible that the result is only official tapping occurs while everyone else gets crucified. May create false sense of security as tapping is generally already illegal. Online hacking/tapping may be launched from outside EU jurisdiction, including phone. So possible that EU will use it to champion own political cause.
Irony, wordpress just put simple text reply here into moderation, probably appear above this comment eventually.
With your permission Mish will post it paragraph by paragraph to try to find why:
That is right for the adblockers.
I disable everything ( flash etc.) and get relatively clean pages. Adblocker on brings up denial of access on some sites already, when switched on.
The EU cookie warning is the most annoying and deceptive. You have a large banner that does not leave until you AGREE.
Mail spam is rare on a personal email, gets filtered. You can simply whitelist contacts or add filters. Worst is phone spam, which I despise. With international coms. so cheap and flexible don’t see how they will stop it all being launched from outside EU.
Data storage is good, will continue though but not be used openly legally. How much traffic routed outside EU also.
Not…. :
Tapping – guess who has the most information to hide.
Last paragraph entered moderation…
Not the above one but another…
Tapping – guess who has the most information to hide. Possible that the result is only official tapping occurs while everyone else gets crucified. May create false sense of security as tapping is generally already illegal. Online hacking/tapping may be launched from outside EU jurisdiction, including phone. So possible that EU will use it to champion own political cause.
Mish, Obama is giving his farewell speech in Chicago tonight. Are you going? Lol.
Being in Chicago I wonder if he’ll address the 780 homicides (largely black on black crime) in 2016 for the first time?
It was all George Bush’s fault. Or Putin. Or Assange. Or those Brexit people. And lets not forget Hilary’s 70 million deplorables who don’t live in or near Chicago.
Obama has an excuse for everything. He never takes responsibility — that’s his M.O. Its why no one, not in the US and not outside the US, respects him.
Well put.
Several publishers have already tried withholding content from users of ad-blocker… they didn’t wait for permission from lawmakers. And user groups have already programmed work arounds for the ad-blocker blockers. Its a arms race where consumers have a MASSIVE advantage.
Since many ads now contain javascript code, which means the code is running locally, the advertiser are already legally required to pay for CPU cycles that their ads are using. Good luck trying to get Google and Amazon AWS (and many others) to give away their systems for free if anyone wants to repeal that CPU rental law.
Firefox already lets users control what pages / domains are allowed to set cookies — no nanny state rubbish was asked for or needed.
And blocking spam is already legal and already “easy”. The problem is identifying what is spam. Lawyers can argue the definition of “is” for years, now the drunks in Brussels think they are going to come up with a universal definition of “spam”? HA HA HA HA HA.
Blocking ads and spam sounds like a great idea on paper, but one man’s spam is another man’s useful reminder email. Allowing each user to create their own filter makes a lot more sense, and its already in progress.
What the world needs is spam filter fine tuning for dummies — because not every consumer can program their VCR blinking zeros (a little history lesson for the kids).
Once consumers develop personalized filters, it makes it even more difficult for ad-geeks to force ads through. Going around one central-planner ad filter means developing one work around. Getting through 1 billion filters requires 1 billion work arounds
Consumers are far better off with personalized filters — which is the real reason the drunken fascists in Brussels are doing this.
The EU will fail anyway.
Life for most is far worse when you are required to be in an ad blocker arms race just to use the freaking Internet. I’d much rather have laws and regulations that make life better.
Because you are an idiot from San Francisco who thinks big government is the answer to every question.
Most people are not as helpless as you seem to be — they can figure things out without the DMV holding their hand.
Please keep you and your helpless kind in San Fran. Don’t infect the rest of the world with your lameness.
So in other words Jon, you’re lazy and you want other people to pay.
Be fair to Jon . Though I agree with you Fred, Jon’s point is valid.
Solution?
Set up a VPN service that has minimal subscription, a dashboard for dummies ( no offence meant) with big buttons filter ads, video etc., combined with a resident mail service with another dashboard for dummies dealing with spam…. and make some money from it.
Trouble is programmers just cannot resist makeovers and increasing complexity. I guess at least 2/10 people just want no frills easy access to basic content. If Jon was happy with a subscription like that he would be complaining like you… ‘ they banned the work around the VPN had for stripping ads… if people get spam it must be because they invite it ‘ etc.
Maybe exists, but as far as I know there is no dedicated straightforward service like that.. pay a subscription, access code and the rest through any browser from anywhere.
?
There have been various VPNs that I have heard of that automatically filter content for you — some combination of no porn, no swear words, nothing that would offend religious group xyz…
But they all fold pretty quickly. Most people are smart enough to install a browser add-on, even people on AARP’s mailing list. I don’t know why Jon Sellers isn’t smart enough.
The other issue is that two religious Christians can disagree about what the word of the Lord is — see Catholics vs Methodists vs 101 variations of Protestants, and that is only the begining. Muslims have their Sunni vs Shia division, which over-simplifies things again. If you tried to set up a VPN or filter service, you would have trouble getting your whole church, ministry, synagogue, or mosque to agree — never mind an audience big enough to justify the costs.
And fascist losers like Jon know that all ready. Their gripe is that they want San Francisco “morals” to be forced on the entire planet. If people trusted Faceplant to censor their news for them, Zuckerberg wouldn’t have been in so much trouble. He had to do his censoring in secrecy to get away with it.
Deciding what is spam and what isn’t adds another gotcha. You think ads for Canadian drugs are spam, the person next to you wants to buy some, and a third person points out that Canada won’t be able to extort cut rate prices for their own citizens if they allow re-importing back into the USA. Someone has to pay for drug research costs, all those gorgeous sales reps, and the endless bureaucracy that is the FDA.
Even porn becomes an issue, as you might enjoy some weird stuff, and another person might be offended by Michelangelo’s David or the statue of Athena (both of which are “graphic” in the literal sense, but art to many people’s thinking).
Only corrupt, greedy, power monger fascists want to decide what is spam, what is news and what gets censored.
And only weak minded losers want someone else to tell them what to think.
Again, I agree with that also. As far as I know Jon he is more to the further left style of government/non government/what have you, so maybe the point is that there must be people out there who are simply exasperated by their experience online, have obviously not found a workable solution for themselves, to the point of welcoming or accepting the idea of a managed web. What we think of those people is besides the point – in EU pretty certain three quaters will welcome or accept these new laws without thinking more of it. That is what defenders of a free/open web are up against.
Consider this too:
The fact that filtering the web (spam) or verifying that information is not being diverted ( personal data) is near impossible except for fully open and compliant company to authority, may be used eventually as justificatiom for increased official access and monitoring of the web and private databases. So the laughing stops when you receive an official mail that notifies you your system is infected with malware which has been registered through surveillance as spamming , would you please allow inspection or cease using that equipment, under penalty. At that point you realise who is master of the web.
“program their VCR”
Posting from the geriatric ward?
I originally intended the VCR thing as a joke…
…but there are people in the world who are incapable of doing anything unless the government holds their hand and gives them coloring books. See the idiot @Jon Sellers just above as one glaring example.
@Fred,
I am a sostware engineer in Florida, and I do use AdBlocker, and it sucks. And I am a conservative Republican. But not a Libertarian (though I was one until I grew up). By imposing your beliefs on all Americans, you are forcing us into wasting enormous amounts of time determining on exactly which sites we want to enable/disable cookies, JavaScript, video/audio, and various ads. Why not just make all of that opt-in instead of opt-out (or use various tools like ad-blocker)?
You still have your precious liberty to be bombarded with whatever floats your boat. And I can use the net without all of the time sinks. Sorry for the late reply but I work for a living.
Here’s some spam for you.
At once lovingly earnest and utterly unenforceable.
2016 – EU adding acts, as example.
1329 basic acts adopted
618 amending acts adopted
Doesn’t include corrigenda.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/2016/legislative-acts-statistics.html
And the market already has some solutions in the UK for spam etc.
No new laws/regs needed but keeps some Eurocrat employed somewhere.
Congrats to EU – good move
Once you “opt in” to one Google ad, or one Facebook ad — you opt in to all of them.
Socialists in and around San Francisco will decide what you see and what you read and tell you what to think.
Alternatively, France might develop their own ad generating monster… and then they would decide for all of Europe what to think… that was after all the real point behind the EU when the fascists forced it down Europe’s throats.
All this assumes the EU directive is somehow enforceable — by a bunch of drunks who can’t even pay their own bills, control their own borders or enforce existing laws.
Correct, Fred. There are sites I’d disable my ad blocker for – if I could trust them to only give me advertising and not malware and tracking. In other words, if the publisher won’t separate the wheat from the chaff, they don’t get my business.
This is the same bunch with emissions standards VW circumvented and it took the US to find the problem.
One thing to regulate, another to enforce.
Fifa is in Switzerland, not the EU, but once again various accusations of underhanded activities, including EU nationals, only came to light when the US got involved.
Passing regulations is easy. Enforcement needs a pair.
This is more a comfort blanket so consumers feel some one is on their side – it will make no difference to surveillance other than encouraging A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.
I don’t know what spam filter my ISP uses but I’ve had no spam for a very long time – 2+ yrs or more.
I read websites that only allow some content if no adblocker used and they explain why – which is a very reasonable thing to do – and request adblocker be disabled for their site. OK as far as I’m concerned.
This might all look good to people in the US but doesn’t make much difference over here.
Passing regulations is easy. Enforcement needs a pair.
This is the same bunch with emissions standards VW circumvented and it took the US to find the problem.
Fifa is in Switzerland, not the EU, but once again various accusations of underhanded activities, including EU nationals, only came to light when the US got involved.
I posted this again to see if went to be moderated.
Actually I find these proposals a very sensible compromise, and tbh, I am a little bit chocked that this comes out of the EU…
Publishers only have themselves to blame about the ad blockers. I think most consumers understand the trade-off of content vs. advertising, the problem is the consumer doesn’t just get advertising – the consumer also gets cookies, tracking, malware, viruses, adware, bots, annoying auto-play, visually disgusting ads, etc. And this is because the publishers contracted out large portions of ad sales to third parties without vetting them and discovering just how much damage they do to their customers. The content just isn’t valuable enough to take all the hassle that goes with it.
There’s a recent study of “worst jobs” of 2016. Reporter and broadcaster are the two worst. And it’s because their employers have chased customers away with their advertising policies.
For the worst offenders you give “consent” when you click on the “I accept these terms and conditions” button which is necessary if you want to use the system, app, or website.
How many billion accept Facebook tracking as a cost of using facebook? Do a google search and you have agreed to this “Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored. ” So you going to stop using Google?
This is a feel good and useless bundle of regulation. Most of us readily “consent” to get the service in question. And just who is going to prosecute some hole-in-the-wall transient outfit in India because they phoned or spammed someone in the EU without consent? It would be like playing wackamole on a five second delay! We consent to the big guys and the little guys don’t give a damn.
Canada has a no call list – political parties and charities are exempt, as is anyone who you have had a business relationship with (ie ever inquired or bought something). The no call list is public in that it is accessible to any call centre. So guess what third parties do with the list? Clean it up and sell it to political parties and charities which is perfectly legal – and to anybody else willing to pay for it, including Indian call centres that worry about laws only in as they attempt to scam people by threatening them with immigration or taxation laws. It is not a roaring success story.
Are there not adblockers already available which allow the content to be downloaded to you but modify the display so you do not see it? I understand these can be made invisible to the content publisher. Personally I don’t find much content that I want to see blocked by “adblocker plus” in any case – at least no one is telling me they have blocked content or asking me to change settings.
Certainly most browsers can be selected so tracking info is only for the current session and not retained, None the less, a profile of your specific OS, browser version, connection IP and other details (such as your cookie and adblocker settings!) that is shared by your machine with the sender (needed to send you the details in the correct format and to the right place) allow most sophisticated parties to identify specific users with a high degree of precision without actually using tracking info downloaded and retained on the machine in question.
Stopped using Google long time ago DuckDuckGo does not track you
Radio and print media ad sales should benefit from this new law.
This is nothing more than another in along line of attempts by the incompetents in the EU and elsewhere, to fool suckers into believing any of these issue have a meaningful government solution. That the solution lies with lawyers, politicians, beaureaucrats, activists and other self promoters. Who have one crucial thing in common: They are all too stupid to pass the math courses required for admittance to a tech career.
So, instead of actually solving technological issues, they are yet again inserting themselves into value chains created and used by others. Gumming up the works, for noones benefit but their own.
With the end goal being, that the gullible minions “feel more confident” abut not taking actually meaningful steps to protect their privacy. While in reality, all the data is still stored. None of the privacy exists. It’s just that a bunch of apparatchiks have gained a greater say in who gets to read the data. Enhancing their own positions as little J Edgars, but contributing little else.
Fully anonymous payments from micro to trillions, pervasive encryption as well as mixing, is the only way to regain a measure of privacy on the internet. All of those things are difficult. Meaning, they require people capable of more than babbling, chasing ambulances, managing and passing self serving “legislation.”