To see a single text ad? To see a series of gifs? To have an autoplay video start? To accumulate tracking cookies? To accumulate permanent flash storage? Permission to do some reverse lookup and call your phone? Permission to capture later browsing and re-write links in a i-Frame?
I am not currently using an adblocker/clicker (broke too many things). By a similar argument if the site doesn't want to serve content to those not reading they ads they can selectively choose not serve it. Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission? I really don't understand why so many people are unsympathetic to attempting to defend oneself.
>Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission?
It seems to me like it's a two way street. The site is implying permission to consume the content by placing it out there, we imply permission to have ads served at us by going to the sites knowing the ads are there.
If the site is serving up malware why patronize it to begin with? There is a distinction between an ad and malware.
The sites don't always know the ad servers have been compromised. A person visits a site, allows ads/3rd-party cookies, is surfing with admin rights, the ad servers gladly push their drive-by malware and ta-da... infected user. It's that simple...
Blocking ads, disallowing cookies (whitelisting), blocking the general ad industry is the only safe way. It's like sex: use protection.
Lets extrapolate this to the real world and see if implied permission works.
You actively walk into a bar. For what ever reason, you can't pay your bill so the bar owner break your leg as a lesson. Alternative, the bar owner will sell you into slavery so you can pay your bill.
Should we imply that you gave permission for all this by walking into the bar? What if there is a 400 pages long contract, which by entering, you silently agreed to by staying in the bar?
Implied permission created from non-action are a horrible concept that only exist on-line.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense. There are no implications since the already in place rules of commerce would preclude any ambiguity.
I'll throw you and your analogy a bone though. You walk into a bar, bars are smokey, you don't want to smell like smoke, but you want a cocktail more than you don't want to smell like smoke. You've implied that you're okay with smelling like smoke as long as you get your martini.
The rules of commerce exist outset the net, I fully agree on that. If we applied similar rules on the net, the implied permission will go away in favor of a common set of rules.
And that is what the EU is trying to do for private data. When it is illegal to track users, then users can't silently give permission by visiting the website. The whole question about implied permission goes away when rules of commerce specify what is and isn't allowed.
To see a single text ad? To see a series of gifs? To have an autoplay video start? To accumulate tracking cookies? To accumulate permanent flash storage? Permission to do some reverse lookup and call your phone? Permission to capture later browsing and re-write links in a i-Frame?
I am not currently using an adblocker/clicker (broke too many things). By a similar argument if the site doesn't want to serve content to those not reading they ads they can selectively choose not serve it. Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission? I really don't understand why so many people are unsympathetic to attempting to defend oneself.