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

How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

pagefair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 362 posts

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#21

Post by dordoka »

danarmak wrote: post #16
dordoka wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that sentence is referencing article 43. IANAL. See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-IN...

Article 43: > In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation. Consent…

Again IANAL and not english native speaker, but my understanding is that they are not independent.

Consent is presumed not to be freely given IF it does not allow..., OR IF the performance...

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#22

Post by confounded »

s17n wrote: post #18
hedora wrote: post #14

Sweet. How to I inform google that I moved to europe (even though I didn't)? VPN tunnel?

If you want to opt out of data collection, it's not that hard, just go to google.com/privacy

What does this definition of "opt-out" mean?

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#23

Post by A_No_Name_Mouse »

dordoka wrote: post #12
danarmak wrote: post #8

> Nor can they deny access to their services to users who refuse to opt-in to tracking.[1] Taken literally this means it's illegal to provide a service in exchange for tracking. Can someone elaborate on whether this is true and what else it applies to or what else other business models are made outright illegal?

I guess that sentence is referencing article 43. IANAL. See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-IN...

The legislation itself refers to this in article 7.4: "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. " I don't think it is forbidden, but you'd have a hard time explaining why consent is freely given despite the fact that access to a web site is denied if you don't give consent.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#24

Post by danarmak »

dordoka wrote: post #21
danarmak wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 43: > In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation. Consent…

Again IANAL and not english native speaker, but my understanding is that they are not independent. Consent is presumed not to be freely given IF it does not allow..., OR IF the performance...

I was asking about the relation to the first sentence, the one starting with "In order to ensure that". That first sentence talks about "a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority". Is the second sentence ("Consent is presumed not to be freely given...") limited to cases with such imbalance?

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#25

Post by ben_jones »

mattmanser wrote: post #11
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #9

> The critical question for both businesses is whether users will click “yes”, when asked to consent. Yes, users will click yes on basically anything. Facebook could put up a message that says "In order to proceed, click yes to give us half the money in your checking account" and the majority of Facebook users will still click through. Look at EU cookie warnings. Did any of those warnings noticeably impact anybody's…

Cookie warnings is a bad example as it was widely acknowledged by anyone vaguely techy that they'd got it completely wrong from the start.

Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#26

Post by foota »

ben_jones wrote: post #25
mattmanser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie warnings is a bad example as it was widely acknowledged by anyone vaguely techy that they'd got it completely wrong from the start.

Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?

Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#27

Post by grabeh »

danarmak wrote: post #16
dordoka wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that sentence is referencing article 43. IANAL. See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-IN...

Article 43: > In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation. Consent…

The above is a recital which gives background and useful in interpretation. However Article 7 is the meat in relation to consent.

https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/7.htm

In answer to your question the two items are independent. The first item gets at the idea that it's not possible to provide consent where the you really have no choice but to consent (i.e due to imbalance of power). One area of particular interest is in the field of employer-employee relations. Bundling up consent with a job offers means it's very difficult for the employer to refuse.

The other item gets at general service provision. You shouldn't make consent a condition of providing a service where that consent isn't necessary to provide the service.

So really the feeling at least consent-wise is that Google cannot attach consent to gather info for advertising with a service provision like search.

However they may instead seek to rely on a separate processing ground under art 6. The main one would be legitimate interests. There is some debate over the applicability if that ground is acceptable though.

/edit Plus the new ePrivacy Regulation brings additional considerations - in particular there's not currently any legitimate interests ground for processing

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#29

Post by dordoka »

danarmak wrote: post #24
dordoka wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again IANAL and not english native speaker, but my understanding is that they are not independent. Consent is presumed not to be freely given IF it does not allow..., OR IF the performance...

I was asking about the relation to the first sentence, the one starting with "In order to ensure that". That first sentence talks about "a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority". Is the second sentence ("Consent is presumed not to be freely given...") limited to cases with such imbalance?

Oh sorry. In that case, my understanding is that they are independent.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#30

Post by kuschku »

foota wrote: post #26
ben_jones wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?

Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....

Because the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law.

The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out.

But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations.

The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.

Post reply on HN