351–360 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From https://gdpr.eu/fines/ > The less severe infringements could result in a fine of up to €10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, whichever amount is higher .
could result NOT must result
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I want that service and someone wants to provide it to me, how is it the role of government to say we can't make that trade?
If I want to take crack cocaine, and someone wants to sell it to me, how is it the role of government to say we can't make that trade? Sure, hyperbole, but the role of government is to regulate when the externalities of a transaction aren't being accounted for within the transaction.
As an EU citizen all I can say is: Get fucked. I hope the EU grows a spine and actually doubles down instead of bowing to US pressure. >Fine for Meta more than tenfold from € 28 million to € 390 million. Third case on WhatsApp pending. Starting to get into a range for the fine that makes sense. Give it another tenfold increase and I'm content.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, under GDPR you can't coerce a user into give up their privacy in order to receive the service for free. If they offer the service for free, the tracking still need to be opt in.
If this was true, every major German news website would violate the GDPR because that's exactly what they do. Can you cite the relevant GDPR article?
“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.”
This basically means that if providing the service is made conditional on consent of personal data processing despite the processing not being necessary for the service, then the consent can’t really be considered to be freely given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting ads Edited for you: you can't make use of the service conditional on accepting personalized ads
Possibly: it's not fully clear yet whether the GDPR requires you to offer people the opportunity to use your site without ad fraud detection, but I'm expecting it turns out it does. And without ad fraud detection ad-supported sites are mostly not practical.
I like Facebook targeted ads. They're more interesting than generic untargeted ads. When I was shopping for an electric bike Facebook showed me ebikes of the type I wanted (cargo) for weeks. It's convenient. Yesterday I made a comment on a hat ad (I didn't think any man except Walter White should wear a pork pie hat) and now all my ads are for hats. I didn't realize their were so many kinds of men's hats. I don't fee…
Either way, it's great that you are comfortable with Facebook's tracking and even get value out of it - in which case you will be able to opt-in once the changes required by this ruling get implemented. Those who don't feel comfortable with it can opt-out. Everyone wins!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This, among other things of course, helped sentence millions of people to poor and deprived lives for centuries. Wealth inequality is much worse in the US than Europe, so relatively speaking, "poor" in EU is still much better than "poor" in the US.
Europe is a museum at this point. Tourism is their future. What industrial sectors are left are protected by huge government subsidies and tariffs, but as energy goes up in price and their economic dynamism continues to fall, their future is keeping the capital cities pretty for US and Chinese to visit and take pictures. A friend of mine is a Norwegian in the US. He told me all the ambitious people in Norway scheme t…
I doubt that anyone from the EU would like to migrate to the USA to do blue collar work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s fine: that consumer can choose to opt in.
Except they can't. If a service is only profitable with personalized advertising they aren't allowed to say "if you want to use this service you need to allow us to do personalized advertising". Which means that in the future if there's a service I might want to use which is in this category and if I don't mind having my data used to personalize my advertising, I don't have a choice: the service won't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s like the iOS popup “do you want to let the app track you?” It’s a BS feature and they might as well default to not let apps track. Is anyone going to click yes?
If they just defaulted to "no" with no option to opt-in this would prompt the argument that people love targeted ads and Apple is the bad guy for not allowing them. If they give the choice, they can put out real-world proof out there that nobody wants them, as demonstrated by low single-digit acceptance rates. They can use this proof in the future to default to "no" without possibility of opt-in.
Maybe that's their strategy, but it's manipulative and a sneaky way to obtain what they want while avoiding [SOMETHING]. Where something is lawsuits? regulations? outrage? No idea.