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

Facebook: We don’t need your consent

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#101

Post by kevlawrence »

Hamuko wrote: post #92
kevlawrence wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they lose this case, do you think it would it leave Facebook a liability for no longer being able to fulfill that contract? I.e. you can’t share my data, now where are my personalized ads that you promised?

The issue here isn't just the fact that there are personalised ads, it's that Facebook wants to serve personalised ads without consent.

Right, and Facebook is arguing that it’s because they have to fulfill a contract. However, GDPR may block them from collecting the data they need to serve personalized ads. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to fulfill the contract.

To phrase my question in another way, would that contract still need to be fulfilled, if they are blocked by GDPR from collecting the data they would need to fulfill it?

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#102

Post by jagged-chisel »

dagav wrote: post #97
jagged-chisel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical feasibility of soul extraction and storage isn't really the problem. It's the act of selling it that's the problem. I mean, we don't 'extract' and 'store' land/real estate, but we do buy and sell it. You can have a claim to land and not need to move it to your warehouse. Just a title/deed system for souls would suffice. Since there's not a legal framework around the ownership of souls, I'm sure we could…

What rights does owning someone's soul give me over that person? If I sold my soul to the devil, he would have me for an eternity in Hell after I die. However the devil is an eternal being, and human law only applies to mortals. I have to assume that ownership of a soul is revoked after the death of that soul, since human authority is transcended by a higher body of power. If I sold my soul to Mark Zuckerberg, what w…

The answers to these questions will be codified into the new law, because they cannot be determined scientifically (yet.)

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#103

Post by thierryzoller »

buboard wrote: post #64
thierryzoller wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your are funny, you say their arguments are not well articulated, yet you do seem not to be up to point. You argue they are regulations? European Regulations are law. European Directives and Regulation are the two main legislative They argue users are using facebook because they want advertising, their primary usage is advertising and for that advertisement they consent to share their data. That's so ridiculous it is…

don't be insulting > European Regulations are law. Regulations have to be implemented and integrated into each country's laws. Countries may not have yet implemented GDPR > their primary usage is advertising I don't see where FB claimed that advertising is primary usage and others are secondary. i can infer from the text that they parceled as part of the "service promise" > FB does not give all the data, the definiti…

You are wrong again, Directives are ratified, Regulations apply verbatim. That said, the GDPR left some detail to each member state.

I am sorry buboard, I don't know whether you are affilated with FB, but that's not just how it works. They indeed, just claim it. That's why you pay for General Counsel.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#104

Post by stiray »

I don't think anyone of us has seen consent request by facebook or google in this form (freely given != 'give consent or you can't use or services, specific/informed/unambiguous != barried in miles of legal giberish,...):

Recital 32 EU GDPR (32) Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement.

This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject's acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data.

Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent.

Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes.

When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them.

If the data subject's consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#105

Post by dagav »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #102
dagav wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rights does owning someone's soul give me over that person? If I sold my soul to the devil, he would have me for an eternity in Hell after I die. However the devil is an eternal being, and human law only applies to mortals. I have to assume that ownership of a soul is revoked after the death of that soul, since human authority is transcended by a higher body of power. If I sold my soul to Mark Zuckerberg, what w…

The answers to these questions will be codified into the new law, because they cannot be determined scientifically (yet.)

Due to it's non physical nature I don't think we could ever define "soul" scientifically, except perhaps as "the aspect of the human being which is not physical". Is it possible to own something non-physical? There is precedent, such as patenting an algorithm, or owning shares in a software company.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#106

Post by usr1106 »

hellofunk wrote: post #98
hugi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread was removed from the front page of HN real fast, as in—one second it's at the top of the site, the next minute it's gone. Despite being very, very relevant news and lots of discussion going on. It's disappointing, although not surprising, to know where HN's allegiences lie in this particular fight.

It's still on page 2 so it's not like it vanished. Who knows how the scoring algo works.

It's on page 2 but in grey font. What does that mean? 164 points after 2 hours.

Many downvotes by GDPR haters???

Edit: s/at the moment/after 2 hours/

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#107

Post by wcarron »

JohnFen wrote: post #81
wcarron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram they crossed a line regardless of what terms and conditions I accepted. Uh, no, they haven't. YOU are responsible for visiting websites and using their services under terms and conditions you agreed to. YOU are responsible for and capable of not using…

This argument would carry more weight if the terms of service and privacy policies were both complete and written in a way that ordinary non-lawyer people could actually understand. However, 90+% of the time, they're not.

Eh, if I sign up for a credit card for "0% APR!!!" and then don't read the fine print that it's an introductory offer, isn't that a result of my action (or lack thereof)?

That they use fine print or dense legalese doesn't invalidate the fact that it was there for the end-user to read and agree or disagree with. I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them. They're verbose, not arcane.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#108

Post by bad_user »

voxic11 wrote: post #63
bad_user wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the parent, but from my pov FB is a net negative for society, so if they are unwilling to play by our laws, then I'd rather see them get the fuck out. They won't of course, because it leaves the market open for grabs.

If they leave the EU though they don't need to follow European laws or pay European taxes, but that doesn't prevent European users from continuing to use the actual website.

No, that's not true.

Due to trade agreements US companies have to follow EU law, for EU citizens, even of those companies don't have a presence in the EU.

In other words Facebook would have to block EU users.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#109

Post by wcarron »

alkonaut wrote: post #80
wcarron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if they show me an ad based on a page I visited with a Facebook script snippet on it, a message about sneakers I sent to a friend, or a post I liked on Instagram they crossed a line regardless of what terms and conditions I accepted. Uh, no, they haven't. YOU are responsible for visiting websites and using their services under terms and conditions you agreed to. YOU are responsible for and capable of not using…

> You don’t dictate how they run Isn’t that what I did when my elected representatives pushed GDPR through though? The reason there are so few successful services with sensible advertising is simple: it’s too easy to fool people to accepting terrible ads that pay more. I don’t think users should be expected to know how to edit their hosts file to preserve their integrity. Nor do I think they can be expected to read t…

> I don’t think users should be expected to know how to edit their hosts file to preserve their integrity.

Ok, that's fair.

> Nor do I think they can be expected to read the ToS (get real).

I am being real. ToS and Privacy Policies can be, and often are, legally binding. Do I expect people to read them? No. Are they legally subject to whatever they agreed to, regardless of whether or not they actually read it? Yes. The user agreed to the contact. They clicked the damn button. They can deal with the consequences of their haste and/or stupidity.

> I want regulation to ensure that idiots cannot agree to ToS that endanger their information or integrity.

That's a bit different than what your originally wrote, which seemed to be less like a desire for regulation to address this and more like a a desire for a new ToS between FB and you, a singular end-user.

FWIW, I'm also a proponent of the GDPR and CCPA. But I also don't think people can just scot-free break or circumvent contacts they agreed to. Where is the personal accountability for the user? It can't just _not_ exist.

Re: Facebook: We don’t need your consent

#110

Post by hellofunk »

usr1106 wrote: post #106
hellofunk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still on page 2 so it's not like it vanished. Who knows how the scoring algo works.

It's on page 2 but in grey font. What does that mean? 164 points after 2 hours. Many downvotes by GDPR haters??? Edit: s/at the moment/after 2 hours/

I think the grey text is something else -- like if it was already visited before or you upvoted it or something. I checked on two different browsers and it was gray on one but not on the other, so who knows.
Post reply on HN