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

Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 241 posts

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#211

Post by [deleted] »

pleb_nz wrote: post #205
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I continue to use WhatsApp because I have fear of missing out. Missing out on conversations from my extended family, friends (only about 1/4 use Signal and all groups are on WhatsApp), work (the Health Service in Ireland literally runs on WhatsApp), voluntary undertakings (all of which are organised on WhatsApp), organising stuff for the kids (again all on WhatsApp). So it's a valid fear based on the reality in…

How often would it have mattered if you missed out on those conversations, say as a percentage?

[deleted]

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#212

Post by mbesto »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #64
gman83 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of Facebook where I live, "Well don't just use their services then" is simply impossible. Almost all of my kids' sports activities and parent groups are on WhatsApp, I have to use it.

> Almost all of my kids' sports activities and parent groups are on WhatsApp, I have to use it. My company asked me to install WhatsApp once, but I explained to them why I don't use it, and they didn't have a problem with it. Sometimes, all people need to know is 'no' and most of the time they don't even need an explanation.

> My company asked me to install WhatsApp once, but I explained to them why I don't use it, and they didn't have a problem with it.

IANAL but if this is on your personal device they can't compel you to do so. Otherwise they need to provide a company issued device.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#213

Post by jen20 »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #180
jen20 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder about that: moving from WhatsApp to Telegram appears to be a case of moving from the frying pan into the fire. To Signal seems somewhere more reasonable.

I don't think Signal has what it takes to combat Facebook's monopoly. It's more inconvenient than WhatsApp, why would people even switch? Telegram on the other hand does not compromise on features and user experience and still is able to deliver a system that doesn't disrespect the user data.

I perhaps don't know what I'm missing with WhatsApp, but I use Signal with Android-owning friends (iMessage for everyone else), and no-one has voiced displeasure - indeed it was _suggested_ by many of them, both technical and non-technical as preferable to SMS, so I don't think it can be that bad.

I don't have special insight into either WhatsApp or Telegram, but I think given the founders and jurisdictions in which they operate, Telegram deserves at least the same level of scepticism and scrutiny as TikTok.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#214

Post by jen20 »

pleb_nz wrote: post #202
jen20 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder about that: moving from WhatsApp to Telegram appears to be a case of moving from the frying pan into the fire. To Signal seems somewhere more reasonable.

I would say from the frying pan into the kitchen bench. It's not perfect but it's not yet being cooked. Telegram is a good compromise. Yeah it's not e2ee. Signal isn't even a good compromise for most people. I don't know anyone who has stuck with signal in my circles. They've nearly all reverted back their previous service or find a new one. Personally I treat everything that is sent over networks as public data. So…

> Telegram is a good compromise. Yeah it's not e2ee.

That does not sound like a good compromise to me.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#215

Post by NayamAmarshe »

jen20 wrote: post #213
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Signal has what it takes to combat Facebook's monopoly. It's more inconvenient than WhatsApp, why would people even switch? Telegram on the other hand does not compromise on features and user experience and still is able to deliver a system that doesn't disrespect the user data.

I perhaps don't know what I'm missing with WhatsApp, but I use Signal with Android-owning friends (iMessage for everyone else), and no-one has voiced displeasure - indeed it was _suggested_ by many of them, both technical and non-technical as preferable to SMS, so I don't think it can be that bad. I don't have special insight into either WhatsApp or Telegram, but I think given the founders and jurisdictions in which…

You'll find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_Telegram_in_Russia

I don't think Telegram deserves scrutiny. Not after what they've been able to accomplish and follow.

> indeed it was _suggested_ by many of them, both technical and non-technical as preferable to SMS, so I don't think it can be that bad.

It's not bad of course, but it's extremely hard to get WhatsApp users to switch to Signal than Telegram. Both because of missing WhatsApp features in Signal and the additional hoops like PIN.

I'm Just speaking from personal experience. Signal was also my first choice.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#216

Post by mpweiher »

irrational wrote: post #173
bilekas wrote: post #12

This is still a bit insane to me. If I understand correct, you have to fill a form with a justification why you object, and then Meta will decide if you can be removed from the detailed data collection ? Privacy is a basic human right, and the strawman argument of "Well don't just use their services then" is ridiculous with their influence. Also them touting to "connected the world" When in reality is "connecting to…

Going to the toilet is also a basic human right, yet many places don’t have widespread free public toilets. It doesn’t seem like a basic human right has inherent allowances.

The human right is not the right to use Facebook services, the human right is the right not to be spied on.

Facebook is not required to provide their services for free.

And providers of toilets are not allowed to secretly film you and share those films, even if they make the toilets free.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#217

Post by mpweiher »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #183
bilekas wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU it is a human right. > The right to privacy or private life is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/data-protection_en#:~... . The violations of these are not the responsibility of the victim. In this case they are the responsibility of Meta. You seem to be talking about it more in line with if it was a privilege and not a right. Consider a passport,…

The right to travel freely feels as much a natural right as any, if we are going down that path. In reality the only rights you have are what you are willing to fight for (and win!), or run away to another jurisdiction for. Natural rights are a fiction to make us feel better.

This is not about "natural rights" that you "feel".

These rights are written down and the law of the land.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#218

Post by mpweiher »

sgregnt wrote: post #159
bilekas wrote: post #12

This is still a bit insane to me. If I understand correct, you have to fill a form with a justification why you object, and then Meta will decide if you can be removed from the detailed data collection ? Privacy is a basic human right, and the strawman argument of "Well don't just use their services then" is ridiculous with their influence. Also them touting to "connected the world" When in reality is "connecting to…

If it is a right, what if I don't want to share it with a government? Can I?

If it's not necessary for the government to carry out its functions: yes.

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#219

Post by pleb_nz »

jen20 wrote: post #214
pleb_nz wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say from the frying pan into the kitchen bench. It's not perfect but it's not yet being cooked. Telegram is a good compromise. Yeah it's not e2ee. Signal isn't even a good compromise for most people. I don't know anyone who has stuck with signal in my circles. They've nearly all reverted back their previous service or find a new one. Personally I treat everything that is sent over networks as public data. So…

> Telegram is a good compromise. Yeah it's not e2ee. That does not sound like a good compromise to me.

To you maybe, to lots of people it is.

I wouldn't use a messaging app to send encrypted content in the first place. But I do want trusted privacy control which telegram provides

Re: Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

#220

Post by mpweiher »

jacquesm wrote: post #128
wkat4242 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's why I said I agree with your overall point. But laws such as GDPR are only as good as their enforcement. It would be better if there was a European privacy regulator directly under the EU instead of big tech being able to cherry pick the country that gets to supervise them. But no the EU is not serving the US big tech industry no. I'm just remarking that the system isn't perfect and there doesn't seem to b…

So far most of the rulings have followed the pattern predicted before the GDPR was enacted, and the fines have been rising steadily for repeat offenders. FB is asking to be made into an example. And yes, you are right, an EU privacy regulator would be good to have but the EDPB is doing a reasonably good job of supervising the member states so far and as the law becomes more settled (and respected) I would expect diff…

> the fines have been rising steadily for repeat offenders.

Yep. Fines rose 7x last year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/fines-for-breaches-of-eu-gdp...

When the GDPR was rolled out, the message was very clear: our goal is compliance, not maximum fines. So first someone has to complain. Then they investigate. If things are not OK, you first get a warning, and if you get your act together, all is good. If you don't, you get a fine, and the fines will escalate.

So it takes a bit, by design and intention. But it will get there, and 4% of global revenue is nothing to sneeze at...

Post reply on HN