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

211–220 of 395 posts

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

#211

Post by simion314 »

TomMarius wrote: post #125
anigbrowl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe hews to somewhat different legal and administrative philosophies from the US, and I don't think the EU is any more corrupt than the US, arguably less so. This subject is discussed very well in a favorite little book, Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.

I don't know what you mean by EU, but most of EU countries except for the west are more corrupt than the US. EDIT: Downvotes? I'm stating facts. How can you downvote facts?

In US corruption is partially legalized as lobby.

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

#212

Post by fwdpropaganda »

simion314 wrote: post #210
fwdpropaganda wrote: post #205

I'm genuinely surprised that in this thread we're not seeing the usual idea that this is just the oppressive EU trying to exploit poor American companies. Is it because the article relates to evil Facebook and not Google?

So if a court in country X finds the fact that tracking non FB users is illegal the Americans should side with the criminal because X!=USA, Google and FB are the biggest companies that do this illegal things so it is so obvious that citizens and organization with sue this big companies and not some obscure forum in country X(if there is such small company that can even track users outside it's own website) Also give…

> So if a court in country X finds the fact that tracking non FB users is illegal the Americans should side with the criminal because X!=USA, Google and FB are the biggest companies that do this illegal things so it is so obvious that citizens and organization with sue this big companies and not some obscure forum in country X(if there is such small company that can even track users outside it's own website)

Not sure if I understood what you meant. I'm not saying that they should, I'm saying that they often do. At least on HN.

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

#213

Post by andrepd »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #67
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?

> enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses Seems innocuous enough until you really think about what they're saying. "But, tracking these people without their consent allows companies, including us, to make money off of them". That's actually a pretty brazen thing to say; as if the fact that people can be monetized should trump their right to privacy.

This kind of corporate doublespeak never fails to raise my blood pressure.

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

#214

Post by majewsky »

icebraining wrote: post #74
tscs37 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1. Suppose that the data is used to pay for keeping the site afloat? Does that make it essential? If you use the data for bank transactions or paypal subscriptions it's essential. If you sell the data for profit, it might be essential but it falls under "opt-in only" of the GDPR. So in this part; not essential in the above sense. >2. Suppose my site is presented as a site that has basic and premium content. The prem…

EU citizens outside the EU. Where is this specified? It's not what I understood from Recital 23†; as far as I can tell, it applies if the business is established in the EU or if the user is in the EU, but not to EU citizens outside the EU (if the business is foreign). † https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-23/

I read your link, and I think it depends on what "being in" means in the phrase "data subjects who are in the [European] Union". It could refer either to physical location (as in "I am in Germany") or to membership (as in "Germany is in the EU"), or possibly to both. I would also expect it to refer to physical location after reading this, but I'm most definitely not a lawyer.

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

#215

Post by majewsky »

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…

> Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc...

If you dislike that, you should be happy about the GDPR since it's harmonizing data protection law across 28 EU member states.

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

#217

Post by simion314 »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #54
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…

> "This law has to be enforced somewhere first." Still, the lawsuits should be simultaneously served to all companies. Preferably with a courtesy heads up.

What, if you get screwed by Google do you ue all the companies or only Google?

Or say Intel users that are now sewing on the meltdown bug should they get involved in AMD too from some feeling of solidarity?

In this case someone did something illegal and someone else complained to the justice, should they first find all (I hope you understand what all means, aka don't forget anybody) and try to do what? start 1000 processes in justice? It makes sense to start with the bigger criminals, if the court decides favorably then you continue to the next ones.

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

#218

Post by TomMarius »

deadbunny wrote: post #208
TomMarius wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you mean by EU, but most of EU countries except for the west are more corrupt than the US. EDIT: Downvotes? I'm stating facts. How can you downvote facts?

"facts" with zero sources and an argument which could easily be dismissed/interpreted as stereotypical US centric argument.

You can simply use Google and check the facts out for yourself, it's common knowledge (children even learn this data in school in the EU). There were no sources in the comment I replied to either. Someone also replied with one of these sources. How can my argument be US centric when I'm European and have never even visited the US?

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

#219

Post by krisdol »

TomMarius wrote: post #125
anigbrowl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe hews to somewhat different legal and administrative philosophies from the US, and I don't think the EU is any more corrupt than the US, arguably less so. This subject is discussed very well in a favorite little book, Adversarial Legalism by Robert Kagan.

I don't know what you mean by EU, but most of EU countries except for the west are more corrupt than the US. EDIT: Downvotes? I'm stating facts. How can you downvote facts?

EU stands for European Union.

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

#220

Post by TomMarius »

gsich wrote: post #156
emteycz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other monetization schemes? Noone is going to pay for access to a page with funny pictures, the site will cease to exist. Everything else will be behind a paywall and you call that an improvement? Up to this point in time, everyone had access to news, videos, science articles etc - for free. Those who didn't like being tracked had numerous options to avoid it. They also had the option to stop using these trackin…

Well then the site dies. Sites die all the time, why should Facebook be any different (on the long run of course)? If users want your service, they will pay for it. If they don't, well then your services is not needed.

Because that destroys a whole industry of sites that are not good enough for people to pay for them, but thanks to the economy of scale, they can create quality content (and a living out of it) anyways. Your claim that it is not needed is proven not true by the very existence of these sites. There are many blogs that are sole income of many people, this will now cease to exist. How is that a good thing? This argument works on a free market; the free market that we had no longer exists and your argument is thus invalid, the state of market no longer represents the needs of people, it represents the will of the government and nothing else.
Post reply on HN