Administered by:
@AlgorithmWolf in order for YouTube to detect the use of adblockers, they are using javascript in the client to detect various behaviours.
The deployment of that js file itself requires consent, the running of the javascript within the browser to ascertain how the browser is behaving also requires consent - there is no other legal basis available under the relevant law.
There is no escape clause here for YouTube, we have EU case law which is binding on *all* Member States supporting this.
@thatprivacyguy @AlgorithmWolf
If that is the case then most websites are also in breach of the same law. Virtually nothing works if you disable client side JavaScript, which by definition has been loaded ( from the remote) and executed locally in your browser.
I’ve never seen a single consent screen for that. In fact, I reckon every consent screen implementation out there would be in breach of that.
So why pick on YouTube’s ad-blocker?
@helvick you seem to have missed the part of the OP that says "unless strictly necessary to provide the service".
@womble @thatprivacyguy
No, I know that’s what the final part of that article says.
It’s just that nobody asks permission to run Javascriot on any site. I can’t speak to YouTube’s belief or otherwise about what’s strictly necessary but who gets to decide what Javascript findings need consent to be transmitted back and what doesn’t? And every site does it.
Are there guidelines?
GDPR is quite clear (to me) but this seems like it could be interpreted to target any client:server traffic.
@thatprivacyguy @helvick @womble Well, GDPR is _slightly_ relevant in that it specifies what level of consent is required, what you must do to collect it, and that consent for it must be separate and specific. But it's the ePrivacy Directive that brings code of this nature under GDPR.