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

321–330 of 395 posts

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

#321

Post by chimeracoder »

lovich wrote: post #302
chimeracoder wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if the index treats lobbying and donation millions to support elections as corruption. Such activities are illegal and considered corruption in most countries. Lobbying has nothing to do with donating money, and lobbying elected representatives is definitely not illegal in most democracies.

Lobbying as a term in the US is pretty synonymous with donating money. If there was a lobbying group that did not donate money you would have to specify that in conversation

> Lobbying as a term in the US is pretty synonymous with donating money.

This is flat-out untrue, and repeating this incorrect meme ad nauseum simply makes it harder to address actual problems when they arise. Lobbying is simply the process of petitioning elected officials. It's a necessary part of any functioning democracy, or else there's no fundamental feedback loop connecting elected officials to their constituents in between elections.

> If there was a lobbying group that did not donate money you would have to specify that in conversation

Corporate entities are prohibited from donating money to campaigns, whether or not a quid pro quo is implied.

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

#322

Post by dalbasal »

tobylane wrote: post #185
dalbasal wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that I did. Just pointing out some recurring themes, generally. We don't have that many examples and "regulation" is a fairly squishy category. But, I think anyone who's worked in a business where the word "compliance" comes up regularly has a clear idea of what this means. Incumbent friendliness is a real concern. In my experience, it is taken as a given by industries facing potential "regulation".

The other side of that is how much mental energy do you give to the ways companies are allowed to lie or mislead. If you’re renting an apartment is the sticker price what you’ll actually pay or are there admin costs both to starting the contract and every month. The UK has recently started to crack down on excessive charges relating to starting a renting contract, with broad positive support.

Idk if it's a case of mental energy. The legal/regulatory toolkit just isn't good. Every little point needs to be detailed, legible and explicit in order to be enforceable. "Informed" just isn't a yes or no point. Boiling it down to such an explicit set of requirements... you can easily boil out all the nutrition.

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

#323

Post by s73v3r_ »

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?

"You can simply use Google"

That kind of hand-wavy stuff doesn't fly here. If you're going to make a claim like "EU Countries are more corrupt than the US", YOU have to provide a credible source for that claim.

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

#324

Post by s73v3r_ »

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.

1. Why should their be a "courtesy heads up"? Most of these defendants know they're breaking the law. The regulatory agencies have made their interpretations of the statutes known.

2. Do you realize how much manpower it would take to require that all separate cases be tried at once? You might as well just come out and say you don't want any cases to be tried at all, as that would be the outcome.

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

#325

Post by feelin_googley »

jsemrau wrote: post #17
rhizome wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter, since it doesn't even make it legal.

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.

This comment suggests Facebooks ability to "grow their business" via third-party hosted beacons, etc. relies on users not editing their /etc/hosts files. (or on not changing the DNS settings on their mobile device to use a nameserver that blocks Facebook domains)

How much "brightness" is required to carry out such a strategy? If millions of users followed step 2 (or blocked Facebook domains through another means), what would happen? How would the "brightest minds" respond?

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

#326

Post by s73v3r_ »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #290
simion314 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is in this case an EU institution selecting FB or a civil rights organization selecting the biggest offender? If the citizens complain about FB and going after justice why are you asking the citizens to find first other smaller and non US company that maybe did much less damage and start with them. Citizens should have the right to demand justice for illegal behavior of US company that makes business in EU withou…

If the law is no cookies or no tracking, then they can literally pick a random internet company within their bidders whose offending. In practice, such broad laws can only be selectively enforced.

And how many people are actually going to pay attention to that? Further, how is that not any different than the "selective enforcement" that you claim is happening against FB?

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

#327

Post by s73v3r_ »

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.

This is exactly the wrong approach. FB should not need to be told not to track people who aren't their users.

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

#328

Post by s73v3r_ »

TomMarius wrote: post #132
gsich wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course not I also don't see any advantage for the user, getting ads is not in their interest.

It is, if having access to the site is in their interest. The site needs ads to survive, they are a form of payment.

You don't need to track users up and down the internet to be able to serve a damn ad.

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

#329

Post by s73v3r_ »

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

Contracts of adhesion are almost universally derided as being quite one sided and shitty to people.

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

#330

Post by s73v3r_ »

TomMarius wrote: post #134
mziel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposed to enumerate all uses of the data (and they need to be sufficiently detailed and specific). The user has a choice to opt-in/out of each of them separately. There is currently no detailed description as to what the definition of "sufficiently" is. For example: - can I use your data to build a targeting machine learning model? - can I use it to target you? - do I need specific opt-in for every model? Mo…

Defend it? What happened with "innocent until proven guilty"?

The industry decided to vacuum up every last little bit of data they could get their hands on. They've very much already been proven guilty. This is now probation for the industry.
Post reply on HN