Mastodawn

@airwhale Your screenshot includes Adforms, so I looked them up: their ”legitimate interest” is based on their right to conduct a business (within the boundaries of the law). Effectively a declaration that they will do anything and everything to make money, right up to the very boundaries of the law, ethics be damned.

And this is one of the more serious actors. They have been around for a while. Now imagine the rest of them.

@airwhale They make it a point to state that their tech is accurate enough that they can show you different ads in a predefined sequence - yet NOT accurate enough that they can comply with a Right To Be Informed request. Clearly a violation of what the GDPR intended, yet (apparently) just about enough that they can get away with it.

Same principle should apply to of the other ”Legitimate Interest” claims. All fake, IMO, but nobody has slapped them hard enough yet.

@airwhale Obviously, their original ”Legitimate Interest” claim doesn’t hold up, because those claims must be weighed against the subject’s relationship to their organisation, the subject’s fundamental rights, …

I don’t have any relationship with a Danish adserving company. The rest is just legalese bullshit. But of course, they will keep claiming that they do have an interest because otherwise they would be forced out of business. Which - in my opinion - they should.

End of rant 😅

@airwhale
(Footnote: I used to work in that sector, long before GDPR, so I do have some insight in how they operate. Possibly very outdated.)

Tormod 3d ago

@gufo

Yeah, another of the companies in the list was based in Adelaide, Australia, so no prior relationship there, for sure. (Exactly like every other company on the list…)

I have been fighting adtech since we added doubleclick.com to our hosts-file and redirected to localhost, so I am in a good position myself, but less technical users must have a horrible time online.