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

Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 395 posts

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#161

Post by tombrossman »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #94
oh_sigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps there should be a central clearinghouse for people who don't want to be tracked by certain sites. How can you tell facebook to not track you without a facebook account? The best you can do is block various known IPs or other patterns which are bound to change over time.

How to tell Facebook that I don't want to be tracked? By not having a fucking Facebook account! it seems to me that's actually the crux of that court decision.

A typical scenario: Your friends and acquaintances have your contact info stored on their mobile phones. Your phone number, an email address or two, maybe a photo and a birth-date so they don't forget to wish you happy birthday. They install Facebook/WhatsApp/Twitter, etc, all of which upload your personal data from the phones to their own servers without your knowledge or consent.

It's more complicated than deciding not to have a Facebook account, though that's a great first step.

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#162

Post by askvictor »

whyever wrote: post #107
askvictor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's the alternative approach to the cookie law? A yes/no consent page before your site, and if you click no, the user doesn't get to access it? Because that's basically the same thing, but even more annoying.

No, you could outlaw degrading functionality, which is what they are doing in the new law.

How do you do this for services where functionality is reliant on tracking etc? E.g. some of Google's services.

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#163

Post by amelius »

derefr wrote: post #13
fouc wrote: post #2

>“The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies and enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses and reach customers across the EU,” said Facebook’s VP of public policy for EMEA If it is "industry standard", does that make it ethical?

I think the implication is more, "why are you only paying attention to us ? If you think this is a bad practice, then you should be going after our competitors , too." Corporations tend not to mind if you take away a business strategy of theirs, as long as you take it away from everybody else at the same time. If you only take it away from one corporation, that corporation will be temporarily outcompeted by the corpo…

> I think the implication is more, "why are you only paying attention to us?"

I read that as: why are you only paying attention now? (i.e. after allowing the industry to reach its current, pathological state)

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#164

Post by paulie_a »

TomMarius wrote: post #132
gsich wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course not I also don't see any advantage for the user, getting ads is not in their interest.

It is, if having access to the site is in their interest. The site needs ads to survive, they are a form of payment.

The internet existed before ads, people created content and hosted websites without invasive tracking.

And let's be honest, most ads are total garbage.

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#165

Post by pjc50 »

dalbasal wrote: post #122

Two kind of related points. The jurisdiction stuff is disturbing. Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc... It's (a) not practical and will end up helping incumbents .(b) It really curbs the internet's ability to promote an open information norm. Privacy is an issue and we need to do something about it. But, I have a real feeling cencorship, corporate-protectionism, copyright and other agen…

As I've said before, ultimately we have to pick one:

- single Internet jurisdiction, overriding national sovereignty; in practice this means letting America run the Internet

- National Internet jurisdictions, which potentially come with some sort of virtual border policing; Great Firewall(s)

- lawlessness, which libertarians will like but produces outcomes increasingly unacceptable to the public

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#167

Post by Feniks »

prostoalex wrote: post #63
ludston wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law has to be enforced somewhere first. Either it is enforced against Facebook first, and Facebook complains "Why don't all of the the small fries have to do it yet" and if it is enforced against the small fries, they will say, "Why doesn't Facebook have to do it yet"? And the answer is, the justice department will probably enforce the law in the way that the expect to have the best effect for themselves. It is…

That’s not typically how things usually work. When a government agency (think IRS or FAA) decides on a specific interpretation of a law, rule or regulation, they don’t go after a random guy to prosecute. They publish an opinion, a guideline, or interpretation and a compliance deadline. The industry is given a choice to comply or present an alternative interpretation (through courts, lobbyists or legislative represent…

Policing is always about setting an example.

The entire tech industry can now consider themselves warned. Not even giant American corporations with direct links to the White House are above the law.

Re: Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe

#170

Post by gregknicholson »

fouc wrote: post #2

>“The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies and enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses and reach customers across the EU,” said Facebook’s VP of public policy for EMEA If it is "industry standard", does that make it ethical?

> to grow their businesses

Very much not an excuse. It's up to the business to work out how to do this within the law.

> and reach customers

If I am not a Facebook user I am not your customer.

Post reply on HN