Hanff’s use of strikethrough formatting to acknowledges the legal difficulty of using the term “spyware” to refer to YouTube’s ad block detection code. The security industry’s standard defamation defense terminology for such stuff is PUPs, or potentially unwanted programs. Hanff, who reports having a Masters in Law focused on data and privacy protection, added that the ePrivacy Directive is lex specialis to GPDR. That means where laws overlap, the specific one takes precedence over the more general one. Thus, he argues, personal data collected without consent is unlawful under Article 5(1) of GDPR and cannot be lawfully processed for any purpose.
With regard to YouTube’s assertion that using an ad blocker violates the site’s Terms of Service, Hanff argued, “Any terms and conditions which restrict the legal rights and freedoms of an EU citizen (and the point of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive is specifically to protect the fundamental right to Privacy under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are void under EU law.” Therefore, in essence, “Any such terms which restrict the rights of EU persons to limit access to their terminal equipment would, as a result, be void and unenforceable,” he added.