Facebook tracking is illegal in Europe

The "vague and general language":

Article 7, paragraph 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.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

Recital 42:

> Where processing is based on the data subject’s consent, the controller should be able to demonstrate that the data subject has given consent to the processing operation. 2In particular in the context of a written declaration on another matter, safeguards should ensure that the data subject is aware of the fact that and the extent to which consent is given. 3In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC¹ a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms. 4For consent to be informed, the data subject should be aware at least of the identity of the controller and the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended. 5Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.

https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-42/

Facebook didn't like the business impact of complying so has spent years grasping at loopholes that don't exist in a law which is remarkably clear for legalese (especially EU legalese). The fault for that lies with Facebook, not the law making process.

so when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made?

>No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook,

pretty sure there was all sorts of conversations with Facebook and others over at least 5 years where it was quite clear people wanted to fix privacy issues and it was also clear that it was in Facebook's financial interest that it not get fixed.

>tried to draft a forward-looking law that will make the whole system better?

Facebook doesn't want the system better, Facebook wants the system to benefit them. At some point these things are incompatible. No body has gone to a bank robber and tried to discuss with them how to best draft the laws on how to stop the robbing of banks, because of an intuitive understanding that it is not the bank robber's intention to help stop the robbing of banks.

So when the law gets made to stop the robbing of banks, the bank robber than goes ahead and breaks it.

Or in the case of Facebook they say we are obeying the law! But still try to do what the law wants them not to do.

But I think this is the core of our disagreement here >according to their fair reading of that law

I would say according to their desire to get around that law.

(Spoilers: the reality of the “threatens to leave Europe” headline is a much less click-baity “lists ‘leaving Europe’ as one of many possible paths to take, but one they would prefer to avoid”)

I can see that there's not much point in serving me ads for e.g. women's clothing, because I'm not a woman. But even if you knew everything I read online, I think you'd be hard-pressed to guess what I want to buy.

So I don't believe that advertisers need to know all about me. They just need a few data points: am I a man or a woman, do I ever buy anything (do I have any money), and that's about it. Beyond that, I don't see how having more data makes it easier to get ad conversions.

I've never worked in this area, and I drive with ads turned off, so I honestly don't know.