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

241–250 of 395 posts

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

#241

Post by deadbunny »

TomMarius wrote: post #218
deadbunny wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I was explaining why your comment was likely downvoted, it's clearly not common knowledge (hence the downvotes) and the fact someone else provided sources for you doen't absolve your comment from lacking them.

> How can my argument be US centric when I'm European and have never even visited the US?

You don't have to be from the US for your post to sound US centric. It sounds exactly like every other "USA is da best! The east is inferior in every way. We have zero problems." argument which is found everywhere online, especially on sites with a large proportion of US users (like HN).

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

#242

Post by simion314 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #21
jsemrau wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like this makes me so mad. 1. I don't have an account on Facebook. 2. Blocked Facebook domains via /etc/hosts 3. Use ghostery And despite all of these steps it feels like we are wasting our brightest minds to always be a step ahead in surveilling what the humans of this world are doing to exploit it for targeted advertising.

Perhaps there should be a central clearinghouse for people who don't want to be tracked by certain sites. How can you tell facebook to not track you without a facebook account? The best you can do is block various known IPs or other patterns which are bound to change over time.

>Perhaps there should be a central clearinghouse for people who don't want to be tracked by certain sites. How can you tell facebook to not track you without a facebook account?

There should also be a central place for us to put our emails there so spammers won't spam us?If this seems a horrible idea then your suggestion is exactly the same.

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

#243

Post by xg15 »

tzs wrote: post #37
mziel wrote: post #4

Looking forward to May (when GDPR officially comes into force). Provided that it doesn't end up like the cookie law (and there are explicit provisions in GDPR and ePrivacy to avoid that) this might shake up the ad industry: * Explicit consent for non-essential data use, you always need to provide opt-out without degrading the service * Opt-in/out separately for every activity (no more "research purposes") * Data dele…

Note: the following questions are not because I'm trying to figure out how to work around GDPR. They are to help figure out just what the meaning of it is. Imagining hypotheticals that try to work around a law is a common method in legal circles for clarifying the law. My employer does not keep any data that would be problematic, and compliance looks like it will be pretty easy for us [1]. > Explicit consent for non-…

> 1. Suppose that the data is used to pay for keeping the site afloat? Does that make it essential?

IANAL, but intuitively, I'd say no.

In a technical sense, it's not essential: Even if your whole income is based on data reselling, your site wouldn't instantly become unusable the moment you can't collect any user data anymore. (Unless you deliberately make it so, but then that's your decision and not a technical necessity)

Yes, you will operate at a loss, but that is your problem as a business. It doesn't have anything to do with your ability to perform the service.

In a more general sense, basing your business model on data collection is your decision. There are other ways to make money on the internet. So if you have the option of finding other sources of funding, it's not "essential".

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

#244

Post by simion314 »

polskibus wrote: post #102

I suppose US could tax those non-US users so that using fb would cost them something.... Oh wait...

Tax how? FB users do not pay, and this case is for non FB users, will you tax non FB users because they do not use FB?

Maybe send the army or CIA to change some governments, some citizens dare not have FB accounts, they must have something to hide /s

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

#245

Post by madshiva »

TomMarius wrote: post #218
deadbunny wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

We don't learn at school that west EU is more corrupt...

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

#246

Post by boomlinde »

vageli wrote: post #174
a_imho wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the cookie law was good and (ianal) but a banner in your face is not consent, not in an opt-in way at least.

If you're made aware of the terms and can choose to leave, that's pretty much consent. Do you sign a paper agreeing to all the terms when you enter a car park? Of course not! It's a class of contracts called contracts of adhesion. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

The cookie banner does not put me in a "take it or leave it" position. By the time I get to learn of the terms—by any reasonable definition a prerequisite for consent—the other party has already set a bunch of cookies.

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

#247

Post by icebraining »

majewsky wrote: post #214
icebraining wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Germany is not a data subject, so I don't think it can be read that way. Others agree: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gdpr-does-apply-eu-citizens-g...

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

#248

Post by Ra1d3n »

dalbasal wrote: post #237
mziel wrote: post #4

Looking forward to May (when GDPR officially comes into force). Provided that it doesn't end up like the cookie law (and there are explicit provisions in GDPR and ePrivacy to avoid that) this might shake up the ad industry: * Explicit consent for non-essential data use, you always need to provide opt-out without degrading the service * Opt-in/out separately for every activity (no more "research purposes") * Data dele…

Explicit consent is the principle I'm most curious (and pessimistic) about. It's one of those things that are very easy to describe in everyday terms, but almost impossible for legal enforcement to work with. There are rules about things banks have to inform you of, or pharmaceuticals. On the academic side, this can be effective. Disclosure and making information public. On the consumer side it is almost always disin…

Its pretty easy: The law says, that you always have to set a willing action to opt in. There can be check-boxes, but they need to be unchecked by default ("privacy by default"). Simple. I have already received multiple communications from Banks and credit card companies, and they are all very explicit about it and it was very easy to see the choices and the effect of the law.

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

#250

Post by dalbasal »

Ra1d3n wrote: post #248
dalbasal wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explicit consent is the principle I'm most curious (and pessimistic) about. It's one of those things that are very easy to describe in everyday terms, but almost impossible for legal enforcement to work with. There are rules about things banks have to inform you of, or pharmaceuticals. On the academic side, this can be effective. Disclosure and making information public. On the consumer side it is almost always disin…

Its pretty easy: The law says, that you always have to set a willing action to opt in. There can be check-boxes, but they need to be unchecked by default ("privacy by default"). Simple. I have already received multiple communications from Banks and credit card companies, and they are all very explicit about it and it was very easy to see the choices and the effect of the law.

I guess I can't go forward without reiterating the argument, so I guess I'll stop. But, I think considering it easy is naive, considering the mountain of experience to the contrary.

Some things are hard to solve with laws.

Post reply on HN