Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws

Post by nothis » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:39 PM UTC

dmortin wrote: post #58

ckastner wrote: post #6

> "The GDPR explicitly allows any data processing that is strictly necessary for the service - but using the data additionally for advertisement or to sell it on needs the users' free opt-in consent" This is the key point. As the saying goes, on Facebook, you aren't the customer, you are the product. The GDPR just changed this -- rightfully, in my opinion.

Somebody has to pay for it in the end, so Facebook could simply say "agree to targeted advertising and use the site for free or do not agree and pay a monthly fee for the site".

Post by chatmasta » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:40 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #65

chatmasta wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side, it could also reduce product lock-in by increasing data portability. For example if I'm creating a social network startup, and users can export their data from Facebook in a parseable format, then it's trivial for me to offer an "import your data from Facebook" feature. The interesting question then becomes, could Facebook do anything about that? In the past they would be able to sue the startup…

The data belongs to the user. There's nothing Facebook can do to prevent exporting if it's via the data backup. They can just design it in a way that is easy to read by humans but very challenging for parsers.

Post by dmortin » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #87

dmortin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody has to pay for it in the end, so Facebook could simply say "agree to targeted advertising and use the site for free or do not agree and pay a monthly fee for the site".

Sign me up! The sad truth though is that the users who are most likely to pay to get rid of ads, are also the users that are most valuable to advertisers, because that's a signal they have more money to spend than the rest.

Post by thecatspaw » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

xxs wrote: post #69

rebelde wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP addresses are PII, as defined in the law. Every website you visit gets your IP. HN has yours now, and now had a headache to deal with.

Define retention policies and explain you would keep IP addresses up to xxx months to ensure service operation/troubleshoot/etc. Prune the logs. There you have it.

Post by Sir_Substance » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:42 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #65

chatmasta wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side, it could also reduce product lock-in by increasing data portability. For example if I'm creating a social network startup, and users can export their data from Facebook in a parseable format, then it's trivial for me to offer an "import your data from Facebook" feature. The interesting question then becomes, could Facebook do anything about that? In the past they would be able to sue the startup…

The data belongs to the user. There's nothing Facebook can do to prevent exporting if it's via the data backup. They can just design it in a way that is easy to read by humans but very challenging for parsers.