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

Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#11

Post by derivagral »

konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

IMO, yes - because governments then either compel or buy this data from the private sector.

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#12

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

But its not just used for ad targeting for things you might actually want to buy.

It's used for political campaigns, and social manipulation. Governments can also compel the private company to reveal information they have about people.

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#13

Post by capableweb »

konschubert wrote: post #10
Etheryte wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is utter nonsense. We have the capability to do both, we can both work to stop private companies from tracking us, as well as work to stop our governments snooping on us. Framing it as if we had to choose one or the other is misleading.

I don't think that the public is very good at paying attention to two things at the same time. I think that the "ad targeting privacy" discussion is a borderline red herring that is focusing the debate away from what matters. Giving the public a feeling that they achieved something, while violating privacy through the backdoor.

Or, a more hopeful view, is that "ad targeting privacy" makes "privacy" be a topic at all in society, and that could be leveraged to acquire more privacy in more areas, as people start to realize what it actually means.

Problem is that "evil marketing companies" is a lot easier for people to believe in, compared to "evil government", especially in places like in the Nordics where people generally have a much more favorably view of their governments than in other countries (for better or worse).

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#14

Post by alipang »

auveair wrote: post #7
konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

> Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have access to certain social media products, while they are also pushing for backdoors into private messengers? Backdoors are from national governments (Macron in France, Sunak in UK). Privacy stuff is usually from the EU parliament, elected by people proportionally but cannot propose laws, only vote on them.

No? https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366537312/Chat-control-E...

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#15

Post by pmontra »

auveair wrote: post #7
konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

> Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have access to certain social media products, while they are also pushing for backdoors into private messengers? Backdoors are from national governments (Macron in France, Sunak in UK). Privacy stuff is usually from the EU parliament, elected by people proportionally but cannot propose laws, only vote on them.

Only the Commission can start a new law but the Parliament can amend proposed legislation. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-an...

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#16

Post by [deleted] »

konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

[deleted]

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#17

Post by Nextgrid »

konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

> "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"?

The problem is that companies tracking your every move for the purpose of ad targeting means all that data is concentrated in a single place where the government (or another bad actor) can search through.

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#18

Post by Mordisquitos »

> Meta told a two-day court hearing in August it had already committed to ask for consent from users and that Datatilsynet used an "expedited process" that was unnecessary and did not give the company enough time to answer.

So, in other words, Meta is complaining that Datatilsynet moved fast and broke things. Interesting.

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#19

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #12
konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

But its not just used for ad targeting for things you might actually want to buy. It's used for political campaigns, and social manipulation. Governments can also compel the private company to reveal information they have about people.

> Governments can also compel the private company to reveal information they have about people.

This is the big deal.

Private companies collect data at volumes, and at levels of detail, that governments would never be allowed to do.

It's easier and cheaper to let the private folks do it, then buy it from them.

They are already doing this.

Re: Norway court rules against Facebook owner Meta in privacy case

#20

Post by hulitu »

konschubert wrote: post #2

I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…

> Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"?

Yes. Because the line between companies and government is very thin. (government has access to those companie's data, more or less legaly).

Post reply on HN