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

51–60 of 395 posts

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

#51

Post by ludston »

EggsOnToast wrote: post #42
colmvp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. But heaven forbid governments hold a dominant corporation accountable in the public interest.

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. That's not really relevant to the parent's observation that Facebook is likely arguing that they're being singled out in an environment where their practices are so rampant as to…

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 not necessary to wait until you are sued before you become legally compliant?

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

#52

Post by EggsOnToast »

cyphar wrote: post #48
EggsOnToast wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The enforcement of laws matters just as much as the quantity of the laws in my opinion. In this case the argument being made by Facebook is basically "everyone does this so why are we being selectively targeted?" Obviously it makes sense to start with the biggest offenders but it's hard to believe that the EU's apparent tunnel vision on applying the law to American companies is because of a lack of resources.

But Facebook and Google are the biggest and most flagrant offenders. It wouldn't make sense to go after anyone else first, and you want to have a precedent so you can go after other companies (or other companies will stop committing crimes of their own volition because being litigated against is expensive). As for your belief that American companies are being unfairly targeted, this also doesn't make much sense to me…

>European companies wouldn't break the laws in the first place, Asian companies don't really compete in the European "web services" market, so the only major source of rights violations is going to be American companies.

European companies are just as capable of violating the law as American companies. Part of the argument being made by critics is that there's been little sign that comparable effort has been made by European governance to investigate its domestic companies as rigorously as it's been investigating America's.

>If American companies don't want to follow European laws, they shouldn't be doing business in Europe.

The counterpoint would be that the companies are only breaking the law because the EU decided that its laws can be applied globally.

>And why are you complaining about in which order those companies are being punished for breaking the law?

Because it's difficult to believe that there's only enough resources to prosecute a handful of companies at a time.

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

#54

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

ludston wrote: post #51
EggsOnToast wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. That's not really relevant to the parent's observation that Facebook is likely arguing that they're being singled out in an environment where their practices are so rampant as to…

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.

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

#55

Post by propogandist »

Giroflex wrote: post #35
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #18

Ironically, DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials blocks 15 tracking networks on TechCrunch, including connect.facebook.net.

Was about to post the same. Ghostery for me reports 22 trackers on the website, 3 of which are from facebook, including the "pixel" tracker that is mentioned in the article.

Ghostery was bought out by another company looking to expand a privacy browser, but original firm (now called Evidon) is in the business of data mining information from Ghostery plugins -

"Ghostery’s B2B Digital Governance solutions will reassume the company’s original Evidon brand, which focuses on monitoring and consent solutions ...Evidon will retain aggregated data about trackers, ensuring no change to the service currently provided to its enterprise clients..."

Stick to something like uMatrix

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

#56

Post by IncRnd »

EggsOnToast wrote: post #42
colmvp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. But heaven forbid governments hold a dominant corporation accountable in the public interest.

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. That's not really relevant to the parent's observation that Facebook is likely arguing that they're being singled out in an environment where their practices are so rampant as to…

> The difference matters in this context because the counter argument would be "why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large?"

That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws?

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

#57

Post by yorwba »

EggsOnToast wrote: post #52
cyphar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook and Google are the biggest and most flagrant offenders. It wouldn't make sense to go after anyone else first, and you want to have a precedent so you can go after other companies (or other companies will stop committing crimes of their own volition because being litigated against is expensive). As for your belief that American companies are being unfairly targeted, this also doesn't make much sense to me…

>European companies wouldn't break the laws in the first place, Asian companies don't really compete in the European "web services" market, so the only major source of rights violations is going to be American companies. European companies are just as capable of violating the law as American companies. Part of the argument being made by critics is that there's been little sign that comparable effort has been made by…

> Because it's difficult to believe that there's only enough resources to prosecute a handful of companies at a time.

The decision in question was in a civil suit. The suit was brought by a "privacy watchdog" organization that's presumably at least partially government funded to investigate cases like this, but that doesn't prevent anyone else from suing as well.

So if you know of a European company with similarly privacy-violating practices, what's stopping you from filing suit? Or if you're not an EU citizen, you might still be able to get some less corporate-friendly group to investigate.

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

#58

Post by dennisgorelik »

fouc wrote: post #2

>“The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies and enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses and reach customers across the EU,” said Facebook’s VP of public policy for EMEA If it is "industry standard", does that make it ethical?

> ethical?

Yes, tracking cookies is ethical. If some internet users do not want to get tracked - they can run their browser in Incognito Mode.

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

#59

Post by EggsOnToast »

IncRnd wrote: post #56
EggsOnToast wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny. If your site drops dramatically on Google's search results, or if YouTube/Facebook bans your account for reasons, tough luck. They are a corporation and can do whatever they want without resorting to any sort of internal consistency. That's not really relevant to the parent's observation that Facebook is likely arguing that they're being singled out in an environment where their practices are so rampant as to…

> The difference matters in this context because the counter argument would be "why is the law being enforced predominantly against a handful of American companies instead of the industry at large?" That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction. Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws?

>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's position one avenue would be to argue that the law is being selectively enforced. Obviously this isn't a comprehensive argument but it's an easy platform to jump in other directions from.

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

#60

Post by EggsOnToast »

yorwba wrote: post #57
EggsOnToast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>European companies wouldn't break the laws in the first place, Asian companies don't really compete in the European "web services" market, so the only major source of rights violations is going to be American companies. European companies are just as capable of violating the law as American companies. Part of the argument being made by critics is that there's been little sign that comparable effort has been made by…

> Because it's difficult to believe that there's only enough resources to prosecute a handful of companies at a time. The decision in question was in a civil suit. The suit was brought by a "privacy watchdog" organization that's presumably at least partially government funded to investigate cases like this, but that doesn't prevent anyone else from suing as well. So if you know of a European company with similarly pr…

Your point is valid but it's also separate from the situation I was discussing. The response you quoted was general because the statement I was reacting to was written generally rather than specifically about this one instance in isolation.
Post reply on HN