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

Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 384 posts

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#171

Post by brianmcc »

dangerface wrote: post #142
brianmcc wrote: post #82

Targeted advertising has become such a big deal, and implemented at such high cost, that I wonder if the trade off is even worth it now. I could imagine Apple or Samsung simply "sponsoring" Facebook for a week or month at a time with banners and messaging - tastefully done of course! - and how much less hassle that would all be, rather than aggregating millions upon millions of cookies and chasing people around the i…

Targeted advertising has always seemed pretty dumb, to me most advertising is done by Coke and their target is every where.

Exactly - traditional advertising has long been about product and brand awareness and giving people the warm fuzzies about their logos, slogans, imagery etc. Treat online as exactly that with clickthroughs as a bonus!

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#172

Post by sanxiyn »

mortehu wrote: post #131
henrikschroder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sign me up! The sad truth though is that the users who are most likely to pay to get rid of ads, are also the users that are most valuable to advertisers, because that's a signal they have more money to spend than the rest.

You can disable Google's ad targeting at any time: https://adssettings.google.com/ You don't have to pay anything. What you get instead is untargeted ads, like ads for cars, potato chips, and shampoo, just like on TV. Personally I find those to be a lot more annoying. Facebook's ad targeting can be similarly disabled under https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/?entry_product=ad_s...

You can also disable Google's ads on some sites, https://contributor.google.com/

Sadly, Google Contributor is not available outside US. I am eagerly waiting for it.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#173

Post by pjc50 »

tomrod wrote: post #20
Certhas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not "unintended consequences", it is explicitly anticipated by the law. Which is why people can and are suing. We'll see how it shakes out in the courts.

The law explicitly said "within hours of taking effect, these specific companies are to be sued due to not preparing sufficiently for GDPR"?

The law is explicitly aimed at direct marketing. It's mentioned in the text: (article 21)

"Where personal data are processed for direct marketing purposes, the data subject shall have the right to object at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her for such marketing, which includes profiling to the extent that it is related to such direct marketing.

3. Where the data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purposes, the personal data shall no longer be processed for such purposes."

(also I think "In the context of the use of information society services, and notwithstanding Directive 2002/58/EC, the data subject may exercise his or her right to object by automated means using technical specifications." means that suddenly people are required to respect Do Not Track, which will be .. entertaining)

All laws enable action to be taken against people who are not following them at the time they come into effect. That's what "coming into effect" means.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#174

Post by lovich »

MarkMc wrote: post #170

I think Facebook's lawyers have determined that they can use the 'legitimate interest' basis for showing targeted ads to their users [0]. This basis does not require consent from users except as part of the take-it-or-leave-it initial terms of service. Here are the parts of the 'legitimate interest' basis which are most useful to Facebook: The GDPR does not define what factors to take into account when deciding if yo…

If companies successfully argue that maximising revenue is a legitimate interest and thus, don't need users consent, then the GPDR will worth less the paper it was written on.

I would be extremely surprised if the EU goes through all this tome, effort, and money just to let corporations continue with business as usual

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#175

Post by sanxiyn »

dmortin wrote: post #95
henrikschroder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sign me up! The sad truth though is that the users who are most likely to pay to get rid of ads, are also the users that are most valuable to advertisers, because that's a signal they have more money to spend than the rest.

What if they say it's $20 a month? And it's just facebook. Google also asks for $20, Reddit too, etc. It won't be cheap.

I am more than willing to pay $20 a month for both Google and Facebook. Do you hear me? Take my money!

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#176

Post by eitally »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #109
lloydsparkes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If google had made software updates available, which gave the correct options and are GDPR compliant. But the OEM, Network don't approve / supply those updates, is Google at fault? (In this case its a non-Google phone running Android)

It's Google's terms, and Google is the one who determined the mandatory flow of that setup as per agreement with the hardware vendor. The EU could absolutely hold them responsible for not having this sorted out with their partners, it isn't like the OEM put the terms on a device and sold it without Google's permission.

But the OEM is responsible for software support for their devices (this is the entire Android model and why Google has been working so hard on the Treble project the past year+). Since the current version of Android doesn't have this problem, I don't see how this is Google's problem.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#177

Post by dominotw »

dx034 wrote: post #65
chatmasta wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side, it could also reduce product lock-in by increasing data portability. For example if I'm creating a social network startup, and users can export their data from Facebook in a parseable format, then it's trivial for me to offer an "import your data from Facebook" feature. The interesting question then becomes, could Facebook do anything about that? In the past they would be able to sue the startup…

The data belongs to the user. There's nothing Facebook can do to prevent exporting if it's via the data backup. They can just design it in a way that is easy to read by humans but very challenging for parsers.

I don't understand how a facebook post made by me 'belongs' to me. It was addressed to specific audience that facebook made available to me, it wouldn't have existed in the first place if facebook didn't exist. How does it completely belong to me.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#178

Post by contravariant »

mirko22 wrote: post #134
sleepyhead wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the spirit of GDPR is also to make Terms of Service shorter by being clear and understandable. If you as a user is unable to understand what you are agreeing to then it is a violation of GDPR.

> unable to understand What if he is not very smart? Or even better, what if he is very dumb? At which level should those be written then?

The literal text of the GDPR is as follows:

>the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#179

Post by heartbreak »

scrollaway wrote: post #120
tazjin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be great if companies offered a "buy back your privacy" subscription model. For the services I really don't want to stop using (Twitter ...) I'd definitely be using that.

https://gsuite.google.com/ A lot of people don't seem to know that GSuite is both usable (useful, even) and affordable (cheap!) even if you are a solo user. Here's a quick howto: 1. Go buy your own domain name (~$10/yr, https://www.gandi.net/ ). Make it something you like, something professional. This is for your personal email address. firstname@lastname is the most common pattern. I recommend everybody do this. Eve…

> This becomes an email address you truly own, and your email provider cannot hold you hostage anymore.

It's hardly yours. Using a custom domain for anything sensitive like banking is not a good idea. Your registrar is almost certainly a lot easier to phish/social engineer/whatever than Google.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#180

Post by zerostar07 »

p49k wrote: post #166
dmortin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody has to pay for it in the end, so Facebook could simply say "agree to targeted advertising and use the site for free or do not agree and pay a monthly fee for the site".

I’m pretty sure Facebook can’t do that. The point of the GDPR, as I understand it, is to make control of your data a right which can’t be bargained away, much like employers can’t try to bargain away your right to sick leave.

depends really, the law says you can't deny service, but doesnt say you get to get the exact same service. I would expect the same for people who deny ad cookies - they 'll get more ads shown.
Post reply on HN