271–280 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My big problem with this is that the complaints are too quick (unless Google, Facebook, et al are stupid, which I don't think they are). First you have to make a request to see what they are using the data for. Then you can complain that it is being used for the wrong things. Unless the aforementioned companies are blatantly saying "We're sharing your data for targeted advertising without consent", then I think we ha…
If laws don’t have effects then what are they good for? Companies are going to get in trouble and get fined because of this law, that means it’s working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hobson's Choice regarding tracking / data collection consent is specifically a breach of GDPR.
The option to refuse the new terms is there, it's just not explicit. I'm not saying this is nice or good, but OP's comment sounded like there's no option, they just made it less obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
GDPR is not against the ad business, it is only setting limits and obligations on how you can use personal data. It is saying that it is not normal for businesses to build huge user profiles without oversight or even consideration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is an IP address PII or not? I have read multiple different interpretations today. Is a hash of an IP address PII?
Is this really that complex? If it can be linked to the individual, then it is. https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-...
Can I still have a forum where users submit text?
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.
They would take your money and track you anyway, and everyone knows it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real test is how Google behaves. Google shouldn't be collecting data from users who agreed to share their data based on outdated ToS that are no longer legally valid. They should ask for agreement to new GDPR-compliant terms just as they do for users who agreed to the old terms before GDPR was law.
Why do you think that previous ToS was outdated and no longer legally valid? Why do you think consent given x years earlyer would not be valid?
If they stop collecting data for those users (at least until they opt in to an updated ToS) that would work around the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
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…
> 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
It's meant to try to plunder some of the global revenue that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. are generating. They're betting that these companies will slip up at some point (who the hell taxes revenue, instead of profit, other than the backwards Russian state anyway?).
Amazon is going to $400 billion in sales (and is about to have a giant, lucrative ad business). Google is going to $200 billion in sales. Facebook is going to $100 billion in sales. Netflix will have 250 million subscribers. Apple is pushing toward $250 billion in sales.
GDPR itself wasn't designed just to tax the US giants. The 4% tax on worldwide revenue however does exist solely to try to get loot from the US tech dominance. As the EU gets left further and further behind the US tech colossus, their rage and envy will increase by the year.
The Germans like to snark at the Americans about how they should build better cars. Well, Europe should learn to build better tech, and learn to pay their engineers what they're actually worth if they want to compete with the US that pays 3x or 5x more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not always possible. A number of shared hosting services will automatically log IP addresses and do not provide a means to prevent logging. Of course, in that situation an argument could be made that the web host is the data controller, but that won't stop people taking legal action against the website's operator.
> but that won't stop people taking legal action against the website's operator. The GDPR doesn't allow individuals to take legal action against non-compliant companies. It allows individuals to report companies to their local data protection agency.