I'm really curious to find out if the GDPR privacy stance (I'm American, not well traveled, and with no non american social circle) is like the 'no JavaScript' community. Vastly over represented in the tech community and not really representative of the population as a whole. In other words, are 99% of European citizens going to just click through what ever annoying prompts they have to in order to get to their faceb…
There are so many people undergoing GDPR workplace training at the moment that I think people may stop and think
So many people or so many people in the web service tech industry that frequents HN?
what? seriously? Do EU citizens have some kind of legal right to Facebook access, now? It's illegal for Facebook to not serve people they can't sell to advertisers? I'd love it if Facebook were nationalized (or destroyed), but none of the coverage of the GDPR made it sound like it was going in that direction. I thought it was just another stupid "click here to acknowledge our cookies" rule that was going to spam up t…
There is no legal right to Facebook, but if Facebook wants to do business here, it has to abide by our rules. And our rules are very simple, you cannot deny service because the user doesn't allow tracking if tracking is not necessary for your service to work. And it isn't in this case, it's only necessary to deliver higher paying ads. Since they are being selective on the users they accept based on being tracked, the…
What if you provided an alternate access model?
E.g. allow them to either sign up to the tracking or pay 100$/month for access
Tracking would not be mandatory to access the service, as the alternative way (to pay for the service) is available
Are you talking with real knowledge of the facts, or is this a guess? Because my guess would be that it would be cheaper to adhere to the rules rather than let a competitor grow big in Europe and eat their market elsewhere.
But the 'competitor' will have much lower revenue than Facebook because of the lack of targeted advertising.
And much less users too...because of less relevant ads and content in general!
Is it? If they hold personal data of EU citizens in a shadow profile they must allow a way to view and correct or delete it. Head in sand like this approach will remain unacceptable to EU.
This assume that they have such shadow profiles...I have yet to see any evidence of it though
Zuck specifically answered questions covering shadow profiles during his inquisition. They exist and are used even if that user is not a Facebook user. It’s not an unknown.
Do mean that a government is less trustworthy than an independendent corporation? That a corporation will better look after the interests of its citizens than a government?
As a US citizen, and a former service member, and I can confirm that most independent businesses and corporations are more trustworthy than the US government.
Maybe I'm just naive European, but I'd say that allowing companies to lobby the government does not turn out that great for 'the people'
There is no legal right to Facebook, but if Facebook wants to do business here, it has to abide by our rules. And our rules are very simple, you cannot deny service because the user doesn't allow tracking if tracking is not necessary for your service to work. And it isn't in this case, it's only necessary to deliver higher paying ads. Since they are being selective on the users they accept based on being tracked, the…
In that case Facebook should offer user a choice between paying for the service directly or letting advertiser to do that. I doubt that any nontrivial amount of users would choose to pay even $100/year so that wouldn't change anything for Facebook. However it could be enough to comply with weird EU regulation.
I heard recently that Facebook was considering this and would have to charge $11 per user per month to make up for the ad revenue.
The click-through is itself likely violating the regulation. All it takes is for someone to complain; it's not enough for 99% of people to click through.
How long would it take a EU court to notice, plan, and take action ? VW was blatantly lying about emissions for years and nobody seemed to care
EU courts take notice when someone files a complaint. In the past, great people like Max Schrems have taken the mantle. I'd certainly support him or anyone else planning to follow up on his work.
No, because this ToS thing is not actually a GDPR-compliant opt-in. It's a routine ToS update, with a few tracking things tacked at the end of it. Companies have always been able to deny users access if they don't accept a ToS, but clicking "I Accept" to the ToS shown in the screenshots is not a GDPR opt-in, and I cannot stress that enough. It is just a ToS update, which does not cover GDPR-compliant opt-in to tracki…
I originally was of your mindset as well (FB is in breach of compliance right now) but could not find any mention in the GDPR articles or recitals of "denial of access", "availability", etc. to back my views up. I would tend to agree with you if I could find a source for the stipulation in your 6th paragraph.
"Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1. See Recital 42’s reference to “without detriment”, Recital 43’s discussion of “freely given” consent, and Article 7(2) prohibition of conditionality. See also the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s draft guidance on consent, 31 March 2017, p. 21, which clearly prohibits so-called “tracking walls”."
American here; I just don't quite understand the premise. "Here is what you are giving us, and here is what you're getting in return" seems perfectly legit to me. If this interpretation of the law is correct, then the government is essentially saying the "in return" portion has to be eliminated. Which seems to be against the idea of trade.
One of the points of the GDPR is that you cannot make usage of your service contingent on giving up your privacy, unless your service very specifically requires the user to give up personal details in order to it to even function. Strava is a good example, it does not work without GPS position, otherwise it cannot track your bike routes. But Facebook does not require tracking to work. It does not require you to give…
Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense, although I'm not 100% sure I agree that it doesn't need the information to function. It could be de-identified for the individual, sure. But to actually use the service you need to connect with others, whose identities you must know something about. By following pages or celebrities or whatever you indicate that you are interested in their subject material. So in order to properly use the application you must give up something.