In the European lobby city, Brussels, foes of strong e-Privacy rules have spread the term “consent fatigue”. Behind this phrase is the ‘concern’ of the advertising industry that since consumers have to give their consent – for snooping on them when they are 89% of consumers agree that default settings of their browser should prevent information from being shared.online – too often, consumers are annoyed, no longer bother and simply click yes (as if there was any other option by the way). Therefore, it would be much better for everyone, above all the consumer (!), if a company can hoover up personal data without having to ask for the consumer’s consent.

That is like saying that consumers should leave their front door open because doorstep sellers are likely to often ring the doorbell.

Not without my permission

The ongoing review of the e-Privacy Regulation is about safeguarding consumers’ right to be left alone and giving them the possibility to enjoy online services without being under constant commercial surveillance.

It is clear that people cannot walk through my door and start looking around, or start following me around town, without asking me first. As in the real world, my phone, my digital life and interactions should be closed and only opened with my permission.

It’s about giving them the right to keep the door closed. Whoever wants to get into their house to look around and sell them something must knock on the door first and ask for permission to enter. It’s about giving consumers a choice about whether or not to open the door, the possibility to say ‘no’ to tracking, ‘no’ to being followed around by a countless number of unknown third parties, ‘no’ to being sold to the highest bidder, ‘no’ to being lured into doing things they don’t really want or buying things they don’t really need.

Why are these rights and protections being questioned online when you wouldn’t dream of doing the same in the real world?

Privacy is a fundamental right with good reason. It protects me from unwarranted intrusion into my private sphere. If I’d allow a marketer to roam around my house he’d barely find any letters for example. But I have thousands of emails in my mail account and even more messages on WhatsApp.

There is no problem with ad-funded business models. What is not justified is the degree of privacy intrusion that comes with certain types of advertising, which most consumers are still not aware of. Nor is it right that the consumer has no choice but to accept it.

Consumers should have the possibility to use online services without being under constant surveillance.

Consumers should have the possibility to use online services without being under constant surveillance.

I have one or two old photo albums at home but more than 3,000 photos and videos on my phone and thousands more in my computer. OK, I do have a lot of CDs (I am that old, yes) and even some LPs (from old to vintage), so they could get a pretty good idea of my music taste, though these days I mostly listen to music on my phone or computer.

My phone can reveal the websites and places I frequently visit, the next concert I am going to, where I spent my last vacation, who my friends are, what music I like and what I talk about with my friends.

It is clear that people cannot walk through my door and start looking around, or start following me around town, without asking me first. As in the real world, my phone, my digital life and interactions should be closed and only opened with my permission.

What is there to worry about, right?

The argument to justify widespread monitoring of people’s online activities is that it’s the only way to offer free access to content (e.g. newspaper articles) or services (e.g. Facebook) which are ad-funded.

"No entry unless you let me track you."- Ban tracking wallsBut basically if you are not paying for it you are the product. It is true of course that many services we consume on a daily basis depend on advertising revenues. There is no problem with ad-funded business models. What is not justified is the degree of privacy intrusion that comes with certain types of advertising, which most consumers are still not aware of. Nor is it right that the consumer has no choice but to accept it.

Privacy is a fundamental right with good reason. It protects me from unwarranted intrusion into my private sphere. If I’d allow a marketer to roam around my house he’d barely find any letters for example. But I have thousands of emails in my mail account and even more messages on WhatsApp.

Some people might find behaviourally targeted ads more convenient than random offers. Well, the ePrivacy proposal does not prevent them from getting those type of ads. But those who don’t want to live under constant commercial surveillance should have a real possibility to do so without having to go into digital exile. Besides, aren’t there other ways of delivering relevant ads without tracking, such as contextual advertising? Ways which do not require consumers to constantly face the uneasy and risky situation of opening the door to hundreds of strangers?

Posted by David Martín Ruiz