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

251–260 of 384 posts

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#251

Post by ocdtrekkie »

oblio wrote: post #220

Oh, one thing important to note that people might forget/ignore: this is just the beginning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect A lot of countries look up to the EU, have trade agreements with it. Unless the GDPR totally falls flat on its face (unlikely), more and more countries will realize the benefits of this kind of legislation. Also the GDPR will act as an icebreaker and it will "soften up" compa…

The Facebook/Cambridge Analytica thing definitely seemed to open up more US legislators to the idea. Between the EU taking the lead on antitrust against tech monopolies, and now privacy laws, it honestly makes them look bad: The EU is doing the job most people would've expected the US to take the lead on back in the day.

As GDPR will not end the world or pop the tech bubble or whatever, it's increasingly likely that the US will just go "yeah, we want all that too".

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#252

Post by ballenf »

ldjb wrote: post #77
sveme wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren‘t the ToS pulled from the web when you set it up with a google account? I doubt you‘re agreeing to two year old ToS.

Possibly, but it still might not be possible for Google to provide a means to decline the ToS without issuing an update (which, as has been pointed out, wouldn't be possible to install anyway without accepting the ToS).

If they flag compliant devices, it would be possible on the server side to limit data collected that comes in without the "GDPR-Compliant: true" flag.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#253

Post by mrep »

_bxg1 wrote: post #214
bad_user wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers can say such things and I'm sure that Facebook will try to fight it, but I don't think they'll be able to do so successfully, because the GDPR is very specific about what a "legitimate interest" is. See here for an explanation: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimat... PS: the EU can't wait to give fat fines to companies like Facebook and Google, due to their tax evasion schemes. It's th…

As an American citizen I'm glad that GDPR exists. Our own government will never strongarm Big Tech into respecting their users - especially in this political climate - so I'm glad someone else is.

I think it is naive at best. To me, it's like the EU is a spoiled child who wants everything for free without paying for it. Most of the web is payed for by targeted advertising and getting rid of that would make the web suck as their would be way less money to actually pay for content. Also, non-targeted ads suck as they usually end up being like Viagra ads since they pay the most.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#254

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

kodablah wrote: post #230
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really that complex? If it can be linked to the individual, then it is. https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-...

So IP + timestamp of my ticket system logs is invalid because I also have a timestamp of ticket updates by a user. Actually, just IP because I have a timestamp on the log file. So the latest line has an IP, so I can take the file timestamp and see the latest ticket comment and now I've linked it to an individual. You're right, this is easy. Even easier now that I can't think of a way of storing an IP without the abil…

> So IP + timestamp of my ticket system logs is invalid

What makes it "invalid"? If you can identify a person by their IP, then the IP becomes a part of their personal data. For most websites it's irrelevant, because people just visit and leave. But if someone signs in with their real name, you just need to update the ToS saying that apart from their other data you also store their IP. How complicated is that?

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#255

Post by frockington »

henrikschroder wrote: post #168
akie wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's the first step to being sued.

No, if a company gets reported, the DPA is supposed to investigate, and help the company get compliant if it finds that it isn't. If the company is willfully refusing to become compliant, the DPA can slap the company with a proportional fine to make non-compliance more expensive than complying. And if the company is fined, the company can probably sue the DPA in question if they think the fine was unreasonable or una…

Does the DPA also get to choose who is making a strong effort and who isn't. Reporters can probably start pre-typing the corruption scandal articles.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#256

Post by [deleted] »

kinsomo wrote: post #239
mortehu wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> 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. I'm genuinely curious: what's so much more annoying to you about un targeted ads? I've never found targeting to be effective at showing me ads that were genuinely better or less annoying. I feel more comfortable with un targeted ads, since I can be much more confi…

[deleted]

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#257

Post by JorgeGT »

quohM0Ho wrote: post #154
ptaipale wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. They may even be required to store access information, due to legal regulations in some countries. Also, providing service may become practically impossible if it is not possible to keep logs and similar data.

Other legal requirements trump the GDPR data minimization. In that case you only need to provide that data when the user wants a data export.

Exactly, if you're providing a special service that requires logging (financial, etc.) then you need to follow other laws that trump GDPR, same as you need to obey traffic lights except if you drive an ambulance and there's an emergency, at which point other laws trump the general driving code.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#258

Post by ipsum2 »

bad_user wrote: post #192
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…

Lawyers can say such things and I'm sure that Facebook will try to fight it, but I don't think they'll be able to do so successfully, because the GDPR is very specific about what a "legitimate interest" is. See here for an explanation: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimat... PS: the EU can't wait to give fat fines to companies like Facebook and Google, due to their tax evasion schemes. It's th…

> EU can't wait to give fat fines to companies like Facebook and Google, due to their tax evasion schemes.

How does GDPR relate to "tax evasion" at all? Also, Google and FB set up to pay taxes in Ireland, which is a member of the E.U. That seems legal to me. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#259

Post by adventured »

jhall1468 wrote: post #215
xxs wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are stipulating an account worth is 240USD a year at facebook? Instead of 20, why won't you say 100, make it round. Seriously though, behemoths do fall and if facebook ceases to exist there will be no harm but good in my book.

I've seen this so many times, but if this future comes I think there will be a lot of angry ass people complaining about the $100s of dollars it costs to make the internet useful.

Every recipe site runs on ads as one example. Now five million recipes across 1,000 prominent sites are to be locked behind paywalls, and you must pay $5 per month for access to each site due to the extreme drop in traffic they suffer (nobody is signing up to pay except at the largest sites, smaller sites have to charge more to make up for that, they implode accordingly).

The result: 973 of those sites disappear. Diversity of choice just collapsed. Starting a new recipe site or blog just got 100x more difficult. But hey, in Communist Internet, who needs lots of recipe sites.

Re: Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

#260

Post by hshehehjdjdjd »

908087 wrote: post #224
hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show fewer ads and make the same revenue. I don’t know if regulators will buy it though. I for one am very interested to see how this continental experiment changes the experience of internet users in Europe. And I’m sure glad (at least in this dimension) that I’m n…

> You could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show fewer ads and make the same revenue. I don’t know if regulators will buy it though. It would be hard to argue that when none of these companies are in fact showing "fewer ads" as a result of targeting.

You don’t know that, because you don’t know how many ads they would be showing in the alternate reality where they only show non-targeted advertisements.
Post reply on HN