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

381–390 of 395 posts

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

#381

Post by PeterisP »

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

EU consumer rights specify many (types of) terms that are considered unfair in various common contracts, so if they're included in a standard form contract offered to consumers, they're automatically considered null and void. I.e. it's a general legal principle that because such contracts aren't negotiated, there's one-sided leverage, and certain classes of terms are inherently abusive to consumers, therefore even if a consumer "agrees" to them and signs a contract including these terms, they shall not be considered binding.

GDPR extends this concept also to consent for processing private data - there are some ways how that consent can be granted and received, but contracts of adhesion are not (will not be when GDPR comes in force) one of them. In particular, GDPR specifies that anything included in such a "take it or leave it" contract is not considered "freely given" consent and thus such a contract does not and can not give you any rights to use that data, no matter what is written there.

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

#382

Post by PeterisP »

cantagi wrote: post #254
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #152

What is Facebook's end game here, I don't get it. GDPR is around the corner, it certainly won't fly under GDPR so why the jurisdiction argument even, the days for tracking people without consent is numbered - a rational organization would realize this. I would think just say ok we stop doing it because we're going to have to stop doing it anyway. But they're not stopping, what is the plan?!?

If Facebook's business model is built around collecting and selling personal data, and more than 4% of their revenue globally comes from EU citizens, then they could decide to wilfully flout GDPR and just pay the maximum fine every year. Another way they could deal with it is by disputing the EU-US privacy shield[1] or disputing the decision that overturned the original privacy safe harbour[2]. IANAL so I have no ide…

A fine doesn't imply that you can continue processing the data. GDPR also requires them to stop handling all such data if they don't have a legal right to do so (since the default case, if they can't show a valid legal reason, is that they're not allowed to do it).

And that's a maximum fine for a particular decision not the maximum fine annually. They can certainly be fined once and ordered to stop processing the data within, say, 30 days; then fined once more after the 30 days have passed for noncompliance with that order, and then so on.

There also is personal liability for the responsible executives and employees who'd be violating the regulator's order.

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

#383

Post by PeterisP »

2aa07e2 wrote: post #197

My question is, will I be able to use gmail without my google searches being tracked? Google did a great job to "bundle" its ToS into a single generic agreement for all the services under that "Your Google account" umbrella. I would love to opt out of that agreement, retroactively, and still be able to use gmail.

It would seem that GDPR requires this ability to exist. Let's wait a few months and see what actually comes out of this and how Google will handle that; AFAIK they haven't laid out how exactly they will comply.

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

#384

Post by zaarn »

hannnoi wrote: post #379
zaarn wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those services will have to obtain an opt-in for users and can't deny services based on opt-in, yes. Essentially the GDPR makes such a business model almost unsustainable. IMO rightfully so.

Hopefully it specifies opt in instead of opt out. I can't tell you how many things I've forgotten to do while being conscientious because it was just so out of the way.

GDPR wants absolutely undeniable consent including that if you give consent, the corporation involved has to keep proof that you consented. It is very much opt-in.

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

#385

Post by zaarn »

Silhouette wrote: post #378
zaarn wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those services will have to obtain an opt-in for users and can't deny services based on opt-in, yes. Essentially the GDPR makes such a business model almost unsustainable. IMO rightfully so.

I have very mixed feelings on this one. Personally, I value my privacy. I don't tend to use services like Facebook, mostly because I don't want to encourage that sort of perpetual surveillance or volunteer that much data about myself (or encourage my friends/family/colleagues to do so for me) to be used for purposes I don't fully understand. On the other hand, apparently there are literally billions of people in the…

>But I'm not sure the EU has any moral/ethical right to dictate that business models that have supported highly successful businesses with literally unprecedented levels of popular support should no longer be viable, and the conditions we're talking about here look awfully close to allowing that.

I would say that being popular does not correlate with being good and moral. Being successful does not correlate with being good and moral either.

>Most people I know demonstrably are willing to give up some privacy in return for the convenience that Facebook provides to them.

The patient is not always right. A lot of people would give up privacy for facebook because in the faustian bargain, the short-term benefit outweighs the long-term consequences.

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

#386

Post by doorbumper »

TomMarius wrote: post #312
ionised wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a claim, you provide source to back it up. Telling people to go and verify for themselves a claim that you made is just lazy and disingenuous.

I replied with common knowledge to a comment that had no sources as well. Why the comment I replied to is not being downvoted?

Your comment has been flagged by American political correctness.

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

#387

Post by TomMarius »

ionised wrote: post #371
TomMarius wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody owes you a living. Nobody owes artists a living, a vocation that traditionally was engaged in alongside traditional paying work. Nobody owes advertisers living, or their eyes and attention. Nobody owes a living to the person who makes their money from ads all over their blog. I'm sorry, but if your business model boils down to using your unknown blog and barely visited web site as a vehicle to bombard people w…

Nobody said that anybody owes anything. Please read properly.

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

#388

Post by _Tev »

TomMarius wrote: post #299
deadbunny wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fact someone else provided sources for you doen't absolve your comment from lacking them The comment I replied to had no sources as well and yet it isn't downvoted. > It sounds exactly like every other "USA is da best! The east is inferior in every way. We have zero problems." Actually my comment says the exact opposite, it says that at least the western part of the EU is less corrupt than the US. Do you realiz…

> The comment I replied to had no sources as well and yet it isn't downvoted.

Read it again. It stated much less confidence in those baseless claims, inviting sourced rebuttal. You claimed to be "obviously" right without any sources, and apparently you were not.

Edit: also, complaining about downvotes, especially without even trying to admit mistake is considered as a bad behavior here.

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

#389

Post by _Tev »

TomMarius wrote: post #231
krisdol wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU stands for European Union.

Yeah but the great-GP's statement is incorrect if he means the European Union as it is now, so he logically must mean something else, e.g. EU before the 2004/2007 enlargement (he might not know that it happened, the most corrupt countries joined during those and thus moved the average) etc. He also might've meant the EU as in the organization itself which is a completely different meaning with completely different re…

> the great-GP's statement is incorrect if he means the European Union as it is now, so he logically must mean something else

E.g. your assumptions being incorrect. You could have avoided a lot of downvotes with showing some humility. Assuming someone does not know about large shifts in EU membership seems like argument in bad faith.

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

#390

Post by rmc »

emidln wrote: post #278
zaarn wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that this kind of behavior will be shot down by EU or Local courts. The GDPR contains parts where it explains what kind of reasons might lead to overriding of legitimate or critical interests.

If this is the case, I imagine a lot of profitable sites will be geo-banning EU users who don't subscribe to a payment plan as a non-profitable drain on resources.

Sounds like a good business model. Look at what US tech companies don't want to abide by EU law. Copy their app, but without all the privacy issues, make it free for all, incl EU. You already know what to copy, you don't need to do any research. Development and business risk is much less.
Post reply on HN