Complaint against dict.cc (EN - auto-translation)
Complaint against dict.cc (DE - original)
Background. Online advertizing companies heavy trust connected search people’s browsing habits, their interests, interactions and whereabouts to show them personalised ads. However, according to EU privateness law, online search is forbidden by default. Companies must truthful inquire for your consent to “waive” your correct to privateness if they want to travel you around. That’s why you spot consent banners everywhere. The problem is, however, that astir of these banners petition your consent for hundreds, if not thousands, of online advertizing companies that stock your information among each other. While this is initially done for invasive online advertising, information is often besides shared and sold by information brokers for other purposes. Even rule enforcement agencies from some democratic and authoritarian governments bargain specified information for surveillance purposes.
Uninformed consent. dict.cc’s consent petition presently mentions 1,741 “partner” companies that would beryllium granted entree to the instrumentality and the individual information of users. Reading each of their privateness policies would astatine slightest return 170 hours (even if you conscionable scan each argumentation for 6 minutes). That is much than an full week for 1 azygous consent request. In addition, these “partners” often opportunity that they guardant your information moreover further. For the complainant, arsenic good arsenic for different website users, this makes it practically intolerable to understand the consequences of their “consent”. This communal believe (see e.g. www.repubblica.it, www.bergfex.de, www.fifa.com) makes obtaining an “informed consent”, arsenic required by the GDPR, fundamentally inconceivable.
Felix Mikolasch, information protection lawyer astatine noyb: “It would return days aliases moreover weeks to decently publication and understand the information protection policies of 1,741 companies. It is ridiculous to presume that this would let for an informed decision.”
Complaint revenge successful Austria. noyb has now revenge a title pinch the Austrian Data Protection Authority, arsenic dict.cc lacks a valid ineligible ground for processing the complainant’s data. We petition the Austrian DPA to bid the online dictionary to delete the unlawfully processed information – and to pass each recipients of the complainant’s information astir the deletion. Furthermore, noyb is proposing that a good beryllium imposed to forestall akin breaches successful the future. The Authority whitethorn besides rumor a wider prohibition aliases mention the matter to the European Data Protection Board for an opinion, fixed its wide significance.
Martin Baumann, information protection lawyer astatine noyb: “Consenting to thousands of ‘partner’ companies utilizing your individual information does not only consciousness wrong, it so is. The information protection authority must yet put an extremity to this practice.”
English (US) · 
Indonesian (ID) ·