Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

krageon wrote: post #28
downandout wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is quite unclear about..well...almost everything. But, for example, this guy wants to read his own messages, which is a rather popular use of Facebook. If they wanted to comply with GDPR, they could easily present him a dialog asking solely for permission to process the data necessary to show him his messages. Instead, they are asking for his consent to their entire new privacy policy. That policy includes permi…

No, it won't be - because that sort of strong arming is precisely not compliance. You may argue that they won't be punished for it (I don't think that is likely, but you are right to think it's an option), but you are wrong to say it is a natural consequence of compliance.

A natural effect of a regulation isn't always a natural effect of compliance; non-compliance is a natural effect of some regulations.

High illegal immigration from Mexico is, given geography and existing population demographics, a natural effect of the US’s per-country caps on family-based immigration categories.

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#42

Post by kijeda »

pavelludiq wrote: post #36
piokoch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be the advocate of the devil: Facebook might claim that presenting targeted ads to users is their core business - if they stop doing that they will have no source of income. From what I understand GDPR it allows data processing if this is needed to do the business, as it is in case of Facebook, so if someone refuses to agree for that, such person cannot use FB.

If they renamed themselves to Adbook and explicitly claimed their service is to offer targeted ads instead of being a social network, they might have a case, unfortunately their service is to offer a social network and they don't need to track me or offer ads in order to provide it. They need to do that in order to make money, which is a completely separate issue.

Unfortunately for my gym, their service is to offer exercise equipment and they don't need to charge me a subscription in order to provide it. They need to do that in order to make money, which is a completely separate issue.

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#43

Post by LeoNatan25 »

dmacedo wrote: post #25
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any source on that “they plan on removing end-to-end encryption” other than uneducated speculation?

It is speculation, but only to some extent; upon the acquisition they've pledged to preserve the privacy and security of WhatsApp users. To some extent the announcement of him leaving, following changes to terms of service last year, make if for a very good canary in the coal mine kind of warning, that even if bound by confidentiality or other agreements preventing disclosure, he's leaving $4B behind for "some reason…

It means something fishy might be happening, but they don't have to break e2e encryption in order to achieve fishy things.

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#45

Post by pavelludiq »

kijeda wrote: post #42
pavelludiq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they renamed themselves to Adbook and explicitly claimed their service is to offer targeted ads instead of being a social network, they might have a case, unfortunately their service is to offer a social network and they don't need to track me or offer ads in order to provide it. They need to do that in order to make money, which is a completely separate issue.

Unfortunately for my gym, their service is to offer exercise equipment and they don't need to charge me a subscription in order to provide it. They need to do that in order to make money, which is a completely separate issue.

You do know there is an enormous difference between paying for a subscription and letting your gym MITM you/pick your pockets for info, etc, right?

For example your gym might have video surveillance, which is fine, but it has to have a sign and they can't use the footage for anything else than for security reasons without asking you first and they have to delete it after a certain amount of time. They don't have to video tape you and then sell the footage to the health store next door in order to advertise to you in order to let you use the gym.

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#46

Post by ec109685 »

Do note that Facebook, like any large company complying with new regulations , have been in contact with EU representatives on their implementation, so the idea that this is a “bold” move on their part or they are doing something obviously illegal just isn’t true.

Re: Facebook Locking Out GDPR Users Until They Consent

#49

Post by jononor »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #7

As much as I appreciate the sheer balls of this, it's clearly not in compliance with the law according to the recitals; consent gained in this fashion is not "freely given." Now personally, I think this approach should be acceptable -- if you don't like it, don't use it. But under the GDPR, that's not the deal. Be right back, making popcorn.

It is interesting that Facebook has chosen such an obviously non-compliant approach. Maybe they think thyy will just get away with ignoring the regulation. Or they want just want to see what EU move and user feedback will be as soon as possible, so they can start to prepare/work it.
Post reply on HN