Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by Slansitartop » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

emiliobumachar wrote: post #274

krisdol wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complicated? Remove this “feature” to start: >all of which upload your personal data from the phones to their own servers without your knowledge or consent. Our default legal position shouldn’t be one of accommodating a corporation’s existing market-acquisition practices over people’s privacy.

Are you seriously proposing to ban uploading pictures that contain other people to third parties computers without consent? That would go way beyond Facebook. Would I need to track down everyone in a picture before annexing it to a Yahoo e-mail? I'd think the most pro-privacy reasonable approach would be to stop companies from identifying them beyond "someone who did not consent to being tracked".

I think he's really proposing regulations that limit how such data can be used once uploaded.

For instance, it could still be legal for Facebook to slurp your friend's address book (and your profile, indirectly), but the regulation could require them to discard and purge that information if they can't immediately match it to an account.

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

#352

Post by lotu » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

Feniks wrote: post #167

prostoalex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not typically how things usually work. When a government agency (think IRS or FAA) decides on a specific interpretation of a law, rule or regulation, they don’t go after a random guy to prosecute. They publish an opinion, a guideline, or interpretation and a compliance deadline. The industry is given a choice to comply or present an alternative interpretation (through courts, lobbyists or legislative represent…

Policing is always about setting an example. The entire tech industry can now consider themselves warned. Not even giant American corporations with direct links to the White House are above the law.

The problem is the example being made is that if you are a big American corporation than European regulators will go after you otherwise ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#353

Post by manfredo » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 8:21 PM UTC

Feniks wrote: post #269

mseebach wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think corruption is the worry so much here, it's the erosion of the rule of law when regulators and courts are seen to bask in the popularity of enforcing the law against certain high-profile targets, especially when the perception is that this target has been particularly zealously pursued, instead of dryly and boringly applying the law equally to everybody without passion. That erosion is not corruption on…

Its quite normal in my opinion for the police to invest more resources in pursuing a kidnapping case than a bicycle theft.

It'd be more like vigorously investigating a kidnapping case in a wealthy, high-profile neighborhood while ignoring kidnappings in other places.

Which, granted, is something that happens but people largely regard this kind of unequal protection of the law to be a bad thing.

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

#354

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 8:25 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #161

CaptainZapp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to tell Facebook that I don't want to be tracked? By not having a fucking Facebook account! it seems to me that's actually the crux of that court decision.

A typical scenario: Your friends and acquaintances have your contact info stored on their mobile phones. Your phone number, an email address or two, maybe a photo and a birth-date so they don't forget to wish you happy birthday. They install Facebook/WhatsApp/Twitter, etc, all of which upload your personal data from the phones to their own servers without your knowledge or consent. It's more complicated than deciding…

All of the things listed aren't your personal data. It is data about you, but it is not your data.

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

#355

Post by callalex » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #309

ionised wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Noone is going to pay for access to a page with funny pictures So the site will die, because nobody thought it had any value. What's the problem?

Eh, what's the problem ? That a business (someone's living) was pointlessly destroyed, maybe? How do you know that people thought it had no value? It had enough value that they didn't care about all the ads, at least.

Many businesses were destroyed by abolishing slavery as well. Just because a business exists currently doesn’t mean it should always deserve to continue existing.

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

#356

Post by EggsOnToast » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 9:21 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #209

EggsOnToast wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. > Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws? I'm insinuating that if someone wanted to defend Facebook'…

> You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. I doubt a statement expressing dissatisfaction is a valid legal argument responding to a legal ruling. Clearly the term argument in this context is for a legal argument not…

I was using the term "argument" in the more broadly applicable but also literal sense of the word. Your explanation is correct but you've either misunderstood what I was saying or I've misread your reply.

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

#357

Post by Feniks » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #353

Feniks wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its quite normal in my opinion for the police to invest more resources in pursuing a kidnapping case than a bicycle theft.

It'd be more like vigorously investigating a kidnapping case in a wealthy, high-profile neighborhood while ignoring kidnappings in other places. Which, granted, is something that happens but people largely regard this kind of unequal protection of the law to be a bad thing.

By all means name all the social media sites that are breaking the law on this scale and the EU is ignoring. I'll be sure to contact my local ombudsman.

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

#358

Post by Feniks » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 9:59 PM UTC

lotu wrote: post #352

Feniks wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing is always about setting an example. The entire tech industry can now consider themselves warned. Not even giant American corporations with direct links to the White House are above the law.

The problem is the example being made is that if you are a big American corporation than European regulators will go after you otherwise ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well I personally despise all tech companies selling out their users whether they are from the US, France or Peru. Its a fact on the ground many are from the US though.

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

#359

Post by IncRnd » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 10:54 PM UTC

EggsOnToast wrote: post #356

IncRnd wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism. I doubt a statement expressing dissatisfaction is a valid legal argument responding to a legal ruling. Clearly the term argument in this context is for a legal argument not…

I was using the term "argument" in the more broadly applicable but also literal sense of the word. Your explanation is correct but you've either misunderstood what I was saying or I've misread your reply.

No worries. That explains things, either way.

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

#360

Post by eeZah7Ux » Mon, Mar 05, 2018, 11:13 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #286

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #193

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.

> 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.

I explicitly wrote "lobbying AND donation".

Please don't twist conversation into debates about semantics: it's not helpful.