TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 2126.consprcy@1:2320/105 2df2209c   
   PID: Synchronet 3.21a-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.28-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   BBSID: CAPCITY2   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   FORMAT: flowed   
   Consent is broken. How do we fix it?   
      
   Opinion By Max Anderson published 5 hours ago   
      
   The need to move towards contextual consent   
      
   Most people encounter "consent" through a banner that interrupts their   
   first click on a website. If they read it at all - and many don't -   
   they'll accept or close it and move on. The company behind the banner records   
   a yes or a no, stores it somewhere, and considers the job done. Consent given.   
      
   Clearly, this is a process built for compliance, not for people.   
      
   If you were optimizing for the end user, a cookie banner - like the kind that   
   litters the modern internet - would be the worst possible implementation.   
   Think of the last time you interacted with a cookie banner. That moment tells   
   you everything about why consent feels broken.   
      
   Consent has been reduced to a legal notice rather than a functional mechanism   
   for controlling data. It's treated as something to display, not something to   
   operationalize.   
      
   If consent is to have meaning - to users, regulators, or the companies   
   handling data - it needs to move beyond banners. It has to be embedded and   
   enforced across consumer journeys, data systems, and partners. That requires   
   rethinking how consent is defined, collected, and managed.   
      
   1. Consent is bigger than cookies   
      
   Most organizations still equate consent with cookies, largely because that's   
   where the conversation started. But privacy laws today are about how and why   
   data is used, not just how it's stored.   
      
   The key question is no longer "Can we set this cookie?" It's "Why are   
   we collecting this data, who will process it, and for what purpose?"   
      
   This distinction is important. When a person opts out of "selling or   
   sharing" data, simply stopping a tag isn't enough. Data already sent to an   
   ad platform may still be processed and monetized.   
      
   Unless permissions extend beyond the browser to downstream systems and apps, an   
   organization can't credibly claim to honor that choice.   
      
   Treating consent as a front-end event rather than an end-to-end control leaves   
   a wide gap between what people expect and what actually happens behind the   
   scenes.   
      
   2. Consent has to travel with data   
      
   A click on a banner starts a chain of obligations. True compliance depends on   
   whether those obligations propagate throughout the data environment...through   
   APIs, SDKs, event pipelines, data warehouses, and third-party integrations.   
      
   To make that possible, organizations need a source of truth for permissions: a   
   record of who consented to what, when, and for which purpose. That record must   
   drive automated enforcement across systems, not manual updates or email   
   requests.   
      
   When a user revokes consent, suppression should occur automatically - whether   
   that means halting data flows, deleting records, or adjusting partner   
   configurations.   
      
   The standard isn't "Did we show a message?" but "Can we prove that our   
   systems behaved in accordance with the user's choice?"   
      
   3. Ask at the right time, with the right scope   
      
   The least effective time to ask for meaningful consent is the first second   
   someone visits your site. That's when users know the least about what   
   they're agreeing to, and when context is absent.   
      
   A better approach is contextual consent: asking when the purpose is clear and   
   the value exchange is visible. What does this look like in practice?   
      
   When someone begins checkout, ask to save their cart or send follow-up offers.   
      
   When a user presses play on a video, explain what analytics data will be   
   collected and why.   
      
   When a visitor performs a search, ask to store queries to improve future   
   results.   
      
   These prompts tie a specific data use to a specific benefit, creating informed   
   choice.   
      
   Contextual consent also allows for granularity. Instead of one global decision   
   that applies to every system, permissions can map to defined purposes, whether   
   that's analytics, personalization, or advertising. And each has its own   
   controls and retention rules.   
      
   4. Sensitivity is declared and derived   
      
   Many organizations focus on data that's explicitly classified as sensitive   
   like health information, financial records, and precise location, but overlook   
   the inferences created by ordinary digital behavior.   
      
   A product URL containing "prenatal-vitamins," a search for a medical   
   condition, or a referral from a faith-based site can all expose sensitive   
   attributes. Even without explicit identifiers, these signals can create legal   
   and reputational risk if shared or analyzed without proper authorization.   
      
   Understanding this means looking beyond cookie scanning. It requires visibility   
   into what data actually leaves the device, where it's transmitted, and what   
   can be inferred from it. Modern scanning and classification tools can detect   
   high-risk combinations and trigger stricter consent requirements or   
   suppression.   
      
   Sensitivity isn't always declared, it can emerge through context.   
      
   5. Proof not promises   
      
   Most consent failures aren't caused by bad intentions, but by   
   misconfiguration. For example: a tag is added through a CMS update or a   
   marketing tool starts collecting new parameters by default.   
      
   Privacy programs need the equivalent of security testing: continuous validation   
   that user choices are being respected in real time.   
      
   Automated privacy testing can simulate user journeys, toggle preferences, and   
   verify whether disallowed events still fire.   
      
   Verification turns consent from a checkbox into a measurable control, capable   
   of producing evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.   
   6. Governance makes consent durable   
      
   Consent cannot live within one department. Legal defines the obligations;   
   engineering implements the enforcement; marketing and product teams manage how   
   data is collected and used. Without shared ownership, consent breaks down.   
      
   Effective data governance programs share three traits:   
      
   Centralized permissions logic. A structured data model for storing and   
   enforcing choices across systems.   
      
   Transparent inventory. Clear knowledge of what runs on the site, what data it   
   collects, where it goes, and under what legal basis.   
      
   Accountability. Named owners for consent UX, tag management, partner oversight,   
   and verification.   
      
   When each function understands its role, organizations can demonstrate control   
   instead of just intent.   
      
   When consent is handled properly, it becomes part of how companies build   
   credibility in the way they use data. People can see what they're agreeing to   
   and why it matters, and the user experience feels clear rather than   
   obstructive.   
      
   Behind the scenes, teams have structured, verifiable access to information they   
   can use responsibly, supported by systems that keep those permissions   
   consistent across tools and partners. Compliance isn't just a matter of faith   
   or documentation but is evidenced in how the technology behaves.   
      
   The cookie banner itself may remain, but it should no longer bear the full   
   burden of compliance. Progress depends on embedding consent into the data   
   lifecycle: linking it to purpose, enforcing it through design, and verifying   
   that it continues to hold true as systems evolve.   
      
   That requires coordination across functions, constant validation, and a shared   
   commitment to transparency in how data is used.   
      
   Consent was meant to give people control and organizations clarity. Getting it   
   right demands both, and doing so restores meaning to a mechanism that has, for   
   too long, been treated as a checkbox.   
      
   This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel   
   where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.   
   The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those   
   of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out   
   more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro   
      
      
   https://www.techradar.com/pro/consent-is-broken-how-do-we-fix-it   
      
   $$   
   --- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux   
    * Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)   
   SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 134 206 300 307 317 400 426 428 470   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 700 705 266/512 291/111 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45   
   SEEN-BY: 460/58 633/280 712/848 902/26 2320/0 105 304 3634/12 5075/35   
   PATH: 2320/105 229/426