Column – Last week, the NOS publish an article about insurers who, by means of a pixel, share data with Facebook . The outrage was great and a number of insurers decid to remove the pixel immiately. But the NOS did not give up and two days later ran the headline: “Tracker rage on healthcare sites not over: surfing behavior still forward.” Even after that, the NOS continu to publish articles about the use of incorrect trackers and advertisers who share customer data. But what about the NOS itself?
NOS to publish this . It is the job of journalists to expose things, to make citizens aware of the dangers they run on the whatsapp number list internet with regard to their privacy . But in passing, the articles also mention political parties and broadcasters who are guilty of following visitors and one short sentence really stuck in my throat: “The NOS does not do that.”
NOS article pixelActually, that sentence was correct, because nos.nl does not have a Facebook pixel. But there are other trackers! High time to analyze the NOS’s indignation.
A Facebook pixel is allow
Placing a Facebook pixel is permitt, provid that the visitor has been inform and gives permission for it. The NOS does not mention this and is therefore somewhat creating a stir. Of course, you can wonder how many people know what they are giving permission for, but the fact is that they do it en masse. A second problem is that many websites place such trackers before the visitor has given permission and that is not permitt.In itself it is
It is a pity that the NOS was not entirely complete
a by ignoring the aspect of consent. With that addition, the NOS could have drawn attention to the phenomenon that consumers do not australia database directory realize what they are agreeing to and could have ask the question whether it may be legally permitt, but whether it is not morally reprehensible. And then of course also facebook now and always? immiately put their hand in their own bosom, because they do not do that!
