14 ms·
Facebook’s tracking of non-users ruled illegal again in Europe
- fouc 9y ago>“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?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 9y agoIt doesn't matter, since it doesn't even make it legal.
- mannykannot 9y agoAs the unethical nature of the practice is an important argument for it being illegal, it is important that this self-serving nonsense is challenged wherever it shows up, and especially where it is not illegal.
- jsemrau 9y agoStuff like this makes me so mad. 1. I don't have an account on Facebook. 2. Blocked Facebook domains via /etc/hosts 3. Use ghostery And despite all of these steps it feels like we are wasting our brightest minds to always be a step ahead in surveilling what the humans of this world are doing to exploit it for targeted advertising.
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoRest assured, many of the brightest minds are aware of Facebook's business models and incentives, and many of them predicted the current situation and rejected the company many years ago.
- IntronExon 9y ago...and promptly took a job at a Google? Sorry, but someone is working for these companies, and they’re clearly bright enough to make the necessary tools. I’m sure some extremely bright and principled people refuse to work with anything like an Orwellian nightmare, but enough do to make up the difference.
- simion314 9y agoDo you think that the code that tracks loggedin and not loggedin users differs much? I assume is the same tracking code, but if you are not loggedin FB and Google will give you an unique ID but after that they collect same data, they will need to add some code for merging data if they find that 2 different IDs are the same person. I am not defending FB, my point is that you do not need an army of geniuses to extend the tracking to everyone.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- oh_sigh 9y agoPerhaps there should be a central clearinghouse for people who don't want to be tracked by certain sites. How can you tell facebook to not track you without a facebook account? The best you can do is block various known IPs or other patterns which are bound to change over time.
- volgo 9y ago>How can you tell facebook to not track you without a facebook account? That's the wrong question to ask. You shouldn't have to tell it not to track you. That shouldn't be able to do it, unless you explicitly tell them "hey you can track me."
- tachyoff 9y agoPrecisely. The Overton window for this topic seems to have shifted pretty far. The default position should be one of positive consent and assumed privacy. But then again, I think it’s all moot considering that Facebook’s existence is predicated on them collecting data. Asking them to do less of it is like asking a plant to stop photosynthesizing. That is to say: it’s their whole raison d’être, which means they won’t change it without a little encouragement from third parties.
- unclebucknasty 9y agoIf only. That battle seems to have been lost long ago, at least in the U.S. Google, Criteo and other have long had a default opt-in policy for their retargeting products, etc.
- oh_sigh 9y agoYou're the one in control of your browser. You know it's side effects when you load pages.
- A_No_Name_Mouse 9y agoInternet had become an integral part of everyday life. This is like saying air pollution is not a problem, just don't breathe all the time. Or is my sarcasm sensor not working this morning?
- matthewaveryusa 9y agoIf you apply your mind doing something evil you're evil and no amount of brilliance can justify it. The visceral example I like to use is: I admire efficiency and leaders, hitler was efficient and a leader, yet I don't admire hitler.
- feelin_googley 9y agoThis comment suggests Facebooks ability to "grow their business" via third-party hosted beacons, etc. relies on users not editing their /etc/hosts files. (or on not changing the DNS settings on their mobile device to use a nameserver that blocks Facebook domains) How much "brightness" is required to carry out such a strategy? If millions of users followed step 2 (or blocked Facebook domains through another means), what would happen? How would the "brightest minds" respond?
- derefr 9y agoI think the implication is more, "why are you only paying attention to us? If you think this is a bad practice, then you should be going after our competitors, too." Corporations tend not to mind if you take away a business strategy of theirs, as long as you take it away from everybody else at the same time. If you only take it away from one corporation, that corporation will be temporarily outcompeted by the corporations you haven't yet taken the business strategy away from, so they heavily resist that.
- scotty79 9y agoActually it sounds more like an excuse. "Why have you singled us out for dumping 1000 tonnes of ash into environment each day? Look, this guy is dumping his ashtray on the grass right now!"
- mannykannot 9y ago> Corporations tend not to mind if you take away a business strategy of theirs, as long as you take it away from everybody else at the same time. Not so if it is the only way for the business model to be profitable. More generally, this argument assumes that there is a fixed profit to the business, and the only thing to compete for is a bigger share of that fixed profit. The reality is that corporations are amenable to increasing the profit all around so long as they get part of it, and don't particularly care who gets exploited in the process. Conversely, they do tend to protest when the pool is reduced, even if it affects their competitors similarly.
- chii 9y agonobody likes to be made an example of. However, regulators like to make examples of bigger corporations since the publicity is more effective with them, and also they are able to both pay up and/or change.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoFair application of regulations is essential to rule of law. Going after one company for a common practice but not others is simply the more tyrannical rule by law.
- FridgeSeal 9y ago> if it is "industry standard", does that make it ethical Nope, not at all. Standard practice does not override ethics. Tobacco companies would consider advertising and promoting smoking as industry practice, but we cracked down down on that because encouraging people to do something that is demonstrably bad for their health was something we decided wasn't ethical and would be cracked down on.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- adamnemecek 9y ago" thousands of businesses to grow their businesses and reach customers across the EU" EU doesn't care about this. Like this argument works only in the US.
- onetimemanytime 9y agoIf it is "industry standard", does that make it ethical? Industry here is essentially Google and Facebook. The other "players" fight for the crumbs. Ethical? They need growth, every quarter.
- dennisgorelik 9y ago> ethical? Yes, tracking cookies is ethical. If some internet users do not want to get tracked - they can run their browser in Incognito Mode.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago>enable hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow their businesses Seems innocuous enough until you really think about what they're saying. "But, tracking these people without their consent allows companies, including us, to make money off of them". That's actually a pretty brazen thing to say; as if the fact that people can be monetized should trump their right to privacy.
- andrepd 9y agoThis kind of corporate doublespeak never fails to raise my blood pressure.
- dalbasal 9y agoBesides being a weak argument in such a context, it's disingenious. FB set the industry standard. Maybe half the standard along with Google. FB's system is much more reliant on tracking though. Google's can at least work anonymously, eg searched 'dentists' in some area. FB's is almost useless without tracking.
- zaarn 9y agoIt's totally okay when somebody else is doing it too. A bit like when you wait for the green light to walk over the street; if you see someone walking the red light, you walk it too. Of course you still get flattened by a semi-truck doing 50 kph.
- gsich 9y agoof course not I also don't see any advantage for the user, getting ads is not in their interest.
- TomMarius 9y agoIt is, if having access to the site is in their interest. The site needs ads to survive, they are a form of payment.
- xxs 9y ago...or the site dies if ads are non-compliant. If there is some vacuum, it'd be filled by other monetization schemes.
- TomMarius 9y agoWhat other monetization schemes? Noone is going to pay for access to a page with funny pictures, the site will cease to exist. Everything else will be behind a paywall and you call that an improvement? Up to this point in time, everyone had access to news, videos, science articles etc - for free. Those who didn't like being tracked had numerous options to avoid it. They also had the option to stop using these tracking sites. How is 13 year old poor kid going to read the news after everything is behind a paywall? How about a poor adult?
- xxs 9y ago>Up to this point in time, everyone had access to news, videos, science articles etc - for free. I really don't like your definition of 'free'. wikipedia has been relying on donations for quite some time. guardian.co.uk is one of the recent examples asking for donations and working out for them. >science articles Ok that has to be a joke, the paywall journals subscriptions are nothing like ads. Please, don't conflate any pay method with pay wall (which is a pretty good one). If business cannot retain itself w/o breaking the law and has to shove unwanted images/videos/etc. straight in the face, it may as well not exist. The ads have degraded user experience in so bad ways that having a page with little content and 'next' button just to show more ads is pretty much the norm now.
- qwerty456127 9y agoIt doesn't. And it is a mistake to take ethics for granted and think of it as a norm because the majority of people, including those who govern and implement businesses make unethical things every day. I hope this might change once but for today the only constructive strategy is to accept this fact and defend yourselves.
- gregknicholson 9y ago> to grow their businesses Very much not an excuse. It's up to the business to work out how to do this within the law. > and reach customers If I am not a Facebook user I am not your customer.
- quickben 9y agoStandards, ethics and legality are unconnected.
- mziel 9y agoLooking forward to May (when GDPR officially comes into force). Provided that it doesn't end up like the cookie law (and there are explicit provisions in GDPR and ePrivacy to avoid that) this might shake up the ad industry: * Explicit consent for non-essential data use, you always need to provide opt-out without degrading the service * Opt-in/out separately for every activity (no more "research purposes") * Data deletion and takeout. Maybe in the future EU will also introduce some standards for the takeout, which will allow us to migrate between services much easier (as we now can switch between banks or telcos in a semi-automatic way)
- nrjames 9y agoWhat we are seeing is that the ad providers are considering themselves "controllers" under the GDPR and the tracking of device ad identifiers as critical to their business. Hence, their plan is to inform of the collection via a privacy policy but not to offer users the opportunity to affirmatively consent to allowing their advertising ID to be tracked. It's dispiriting.
- throwaway2048 9y agotheir interpretation isnt nessiarily going to hold up.
- zaarn 9y agoI'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.
- John_KZ 9y agoIn order to make these decisions enforceable we need to collaborate with ISPs to anonymize traffic. Government action is necessary. I've contemplated far too long on this problem and there's no other solution. You can make them say that don't store your data, but that's pretty much always a lie. We can build browsers that reject cookies, but you can't get rid of your IP. All these services can simply track you through your IP. A significant change in networking infrastructure is required, and I'm hopeful that quite a few countries will resort to that soon for reasons of national security.
- dpwm 9y agoThere are many situations, think university or corporate networks, where you cannot rely on the IP address for tracking. There are ISPs that don't have enough IP addresses for users so they many-to-one NAT them and most users won't even notice. Even behind an ISP or corporate NAT with cookies disabled, there are other ways of tracking. If JavaScript is enabled, browser fingerprinting can be very disturbing in its ability to single you out, depending on your configuration. More generally, I always found this obsession with tracking non-users one of the creepier aspects of Facebook when I finally used it circa 2011 - 2012. The amount of information it had about me that could only have come from web browsing before I had signed up, such as local takeaways and restaurants I had used, was impressive but unnerving.
- koolba 9y agoLess so on a corporate network ad the vast majority of the machines are running the exact same build, plugin sets, and usually hardware too.
- shaki-dora 9y agoWhat do mean? Isn’t this verdict a pretty good example of how the law actually is enforceable? For Facebook to lie in such a lawsuit would require hundreds of their employees being willing to lie under oath. It just doesn’t make sense, considering they would risk harsh criminal sanctions and have only their usual salary as an upside. As for IP-based tracking: if it were as effective as cookies, websites would use IPs and not cookies.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y agoIronically, DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials blocks 15 tracking networks on TechCrunch, including connect.facebook.net.
- Giroflex 9y agoWas 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.
- propogandist 9y agoGhostery 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
- christophertino 9y agoWe no longer have any affiliation with Evidon, nor do we collect or sell any data for third parties. Please feel free to review our source code. https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension/ https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension/
- kradeelav 9y agoI've heard Privacy Badger (connected with the EFF) is a good one as well.
- gkya 9y agoI don't think it's the article authors that implement the website.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
- allthenews 9y agoYou know, I am a pretty staunch supporter of minimalistic restrictions on corporate behavior, putting faith instead in markets. But this seems like the kind of problem I'd consider looking to solve through legislation. Although I should say, not without hesitation, given the extreme discrepancy between rates of change in tech and law. I would hate to see seemingly well meaning legislation passed for something like this and then turned against us by our friends at the NSA, for example.
- dmix 9y agoIf you're a supporter of minimal legislation then what's wrong with the courts handling it, as in this case? A major tech company tracking users across the web beyond their own limited use-case platform is a relatively new phenomenon but now that it's been established in the courts as a big financial and PR risk then there is a big deterrent from future companies doing it. And often courts in other western countries take note of precedence defined in major foreign courts to define their own. Formalizing this in legislation always seems to sound like a good idea in the short-term. But in practice it's often really hard to define preemptive regulatory systems that work efficiently (and relevant to todays realities), especially in technology, as well as more expensive to enforce via agencies/auditors, and will likely end up wastefully crossing over into many areas/situations which are totally harmless in practice or having negative side-effects which outweigh the benefits, such as harming innovation. I'd rather we deal with negative behaviour on a case-by-case basis.
- EggsOnToast 9y agoThe 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.
- cyphar 9y ago
- kerng 9y agoOne of the good things about HN is that the engineers working and building these features are likely reading these posts too, I'm curious how one implements these things. Are engineers (some of the brightest ones) not realizing that some of their actions are ethically questionable, or is the big picture not visible to the average engineer in a large company like FB? I assume that many have the exact same reaction and don't think it's okat when discussing this topic - can hardly see anyone defending the current status quo.
- anaganisk 9y agoAfaik software will be sane untill Lawyers and Finance execs are involved. Once they are into your company no more great software.
- oblio 9y agoZuckerberg is/was an engineer.
- Tarq0n 9y agoIs this a parody of the engineer's mindset? One thing that always stands out to me on HN is how obsessed Silicon Valley is with money, from top to bottom. There's plenty people on here that would happily implement invasive tracking if they were compensated well enough for it.
- dnate 9y agoI have seen about 10% of my graduating cs class getting headhunted by Palantir Technologies. From that sample size I'd estimate the percentage of engineers who don't care about ethics to be at least around 10%.
- kirRoyale 9y agoI'd love to work there..
- manmal 9y agoIn an ideal world, engineers would be perfectly ethical. But, you know, said hyperbolically, sociopaths can be engineers too. You should not induce from your own values to people in general. Even apart from people without any values.. most engineers don’t hang out on HN, and don’t care much about global scale politics. They care about things that affect them in a very immediate way - family wellbeing, friends, coworkers, and how to pay the bills. I think many don’t infer how much of an impact their actions actually have, since they are „only spokes in the wheel“.
- sxates 9y agoI just updated my home city to Brussels.
- obblekk 9y agoIt seems like there have been many recent setbacks for FB on the privacy side. When do these setbacks begin to have material impact on the stock price?
- Sylos 9y agoI'd be surprised, if it hasn't yet had an impact. As you say, there's been a lot of losses for Facebook recently. I think, we're now up to 4 rulings of Facebook's data use being illegal in the past two weeks. People considering to buy stock and people owning stock should hopefully be informed enough that noticed this. There's also the GDPR upcoming in May. I cannot imagine that Facebook won't make losses when that hits. They might be able to defer the impact by mostly ignoring the law until they get sued, but ultimately it really just seems like it's going to be downhill from here on, which is not what anyone looking to buy stock is after.
- StreamBright 9y ago"enable hundreds of thousands of businesses" sure, I guess the entire tech industry would be dead without tracking users
- Monk_NT 9y agoIt appears that the article was removed.
- polskibus 9y agoI suppose US could tax those non-US users so that using fb would cost them something.... Oh wait...
- michaelmrose 9y agoIf facebook can't make money without breaking the law it can opt not to service that market.
- simion314 9y agoTax how? FB users do not pay, and this case is for non FB users, will you tax non FB users because they do not use FB? Maybe send the army or CIA to change some governments, some citizens dare not have FB accounts, they must have something to hide /s
- polskibus 9y agoI was jokingly referring to recent tariffs announced by US administration, trying to think how a potential retaliatory action from US gov could look like. By the way tax doesnt have to be % only, it can have an absolute minimum too.
- simion314 9y agoAh, I am not from US so I did not understand the joke, but no tax or EULA could have an effect for people that are not FB users. Even if I have an FB account I do not want FB to follow me and say scrape my HN comments and mine them for data.
- Kenji 9y agoYou all are rejoicing now but you will see that the laws will have unintended consequences and doesn't help much, just like the cookie law.
- nukeop 9y agoEven if thousands of businesses across Europe depend on tracking users, I do not think it's enough of a reason not to fight against it, and i would be very happy if those businesses go belly up tomorrow if tracking is outlawed. A business so dependent on completely immoral, outright evil intrusive surveillance does not deserve to be kept alive by exploitation of our rights.
- dalbasal 9y agoTwo kind of related points. The jurisdiction stuff is disturbing. Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc... It's (a) not practical and will end up helping incumbents .(b) It really curbs the internet's ability to promote an open information norm. Privacy is an issue and we need to do something about it. But, I have a real feeling cencorship, corporate-protectionism, copyright and other agendas will tag along, once the legislature-courts-enforcement complex is up and running. The sorry state of international law/governance isn't helping, including even the EU. Meanwhile, the recent history of legislative action (eg, the "cookie laws") are not encouraging. I don't think legislators were even aware that it would amount to nothing more than nag screens and terms of use. Don't use incognito, or every site will nag you again, your consent is mandatory and stored as cookie, for extra irony. Ultimately, these things would have been better dealt with at the standards/protocols/browsers level, but I think that ship has sailed.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago> The jurisdiction stuff is disturbing. Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc... It's (a) not practical and will end up helping incumbents I don’t think so. Only really large corporations are able to serve all areas anyways. Most small companies in the world already cannot afford to serve multiple jurisdictions.
- dbajakkchs 9y agoIsn’t serving multiple jurisdictions the default online? You have to go out of your way to treat them differently.
- SentientNo4 9y agoIf you run a blog, yes, the global nature of Internet ensures that. If you're running a business, you must abide the law of every jurisdiction you operate in. Companies invest lots of money and effort doing this, from operational (having a physical presence in each region) to technical (e.g. how Amazon has separate sites for each region).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoWhat 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?!?
- juststeve 9y agoa sale or merger of the company. maybe a company like MSFT or Google would buy it, along with all the data. just think of the integration opportunities!
- wsy 9y agoAny delay is money, so Facebook doesn't have an incentive to comply early.It makes more sense for them to appeal until all legal options are exhausted, even if it is clear that they will lose the lawsuit.
- cantagi 9y agoIf 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 idea how they would do this, but it will be costly for ECJ and FB. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-US_Privacy_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-US_Privacy_Shield [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv...
- PeterisP 9y agoA 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.
- hindifire 9y agoIs it right
- xtf 9y agoConsequences?
- anentropic 9y agoYay Europe!
- sirmoveon 9y agoMorals and ethics are just a temporal deterrent in a social markup. We should grow out of that fallacy and start facing issues directly. Until this is not technicaly impossible to achieve, we will keep going down this path.
- 2aa07e2 9y agoMy 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.
- PeterisP 9y agoIt 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.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoYou can't interact with Google in any way without being tracked. Use DuckDuckGo and another mail service like ProtonMail or your own self hosted solution.
- andrepd 9y agoAlternatively, if you find it hard to abandon Google's great search engine, use a privacy-protecting intermediary, like startpage or searx.
- Sylos 9y agoI would also strongly recommend not using Gmail. Google sifts through your e-mails, which compromises a cornerstone of your digital identity. People needing to send you an e-mail will also seldomly appreciate their e-mail being read by Google. To answer your question, though, if you live in the EU, then the GDPR, due to be enforced on the 25th of May, does make this practise of Google most definitely illegal. So, in like two years from now, when the lawsuit regarding this concludes and Google is actually forced to follow the law, then you should be able to. If you still cannot be convinced to drop Gmail, there might be a technical solution to your problem, too. For Firefox, there's an official extension called Multi-Account Containers, which allows you to have different sets of Cookies in different groups of tabs. And you can tell it to always open certain webpages in certain containers. So, you would install the extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... Then click the new Multi-Account Container button in the toolbar and from there open a new tab in a Container (you can also create a Container specifically for this, if you want). Then in this new tab, open up Gmail and log in, and again click the Multi-Account Container button in the toolbar and tick "Always open this website in ...". Finally, open up a new (non-Container) tab and log out from Google there.
- JepZ 9y ago> Facebook Comments Plugin Just awesome...
- pishpash 9y agoGood thing the EU exists as a human rights and consumer watchdog, even if some may argue the protectionist angle, as the US is sure to do f all about it.
- fwdpropaganda 9y agoI'm genuinely surprised that in this thread we're not seeing the usual idea that this is just the oppressive EU trying to exploit poor American companies. Is it because the article relates to evil Facebook and not Google?
- simion314 9y agoSo if a court in country X finds the fact that tracking non FB users is illegal the Americans should side with the criminal because X!=USA, Google and FB are the biggest companies that do this illegal things so it is so obvious that citizens and organization with sue this big companies and not some obscure forum in country X(if there is such small company that can even track users outside it's own website) Also give me examples of EU companies that track users on most of the internet.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago> So if a court in country X finds the fact that tracking non FB users is illegal the Americans should side with the criminal because X!=USA, Google and FB are the biggest companies that do this illegal things so it is so obvious that citizens and organization with sue this big companies and not some obscure forum in country X(if there is such small company that can even track users outside it's own website) Not sure if I understood what you meant. I'm not saying that they should, I'm saying that they often do. At least on HN.
- simion314 9y agoUS has many internet and software companies, you have FB, Google, Microsoft, Apple , I can't even name an EU company, I know that SUSE Linux is in Germany so it makes sense that on HN front page you will see this big companies and not some small EU company. As an example in Romania, Microsoft was caught doing illegal things, they corrupted government people to buy tons of licenses, we should not wait for an EU company to do the same before investigating this MS issue. The fact that some other companies also bribed some other people should not affect the MS case. I am not sure if the MS case even reached MSW top page, but if it were some small software company outside US it would not appear on HN at all, only on local press, so HN from page has a bias for big US companies
- madshiva 9y agoI hope Facebook should pay a lot to EU and in fine. This will be great. I hope that the GDPR don't end like the cookie law, because the result of this law is more annoying people with alert about that you accept cookie.
- halukakin 9y agoBy saying "cookies and pixels" they are trying to downplay what they are really doing. On a website where facebook pixel is installed, they track pretty much every form submitted and even the contents of those form submissions.
- lotu 9y agoI think you dramatically overestimating the value that you might get from form submissions, provided you are intending to commit identity fraud. Which literally no-one is suggesting ad tracking is doing.
- billysielu 9y ago404 Not Found
- vpribish 9y agomoral panic over cookies? cookies?! This has to be just some sort of populist tribal signaling.
- j1mb0 9y agoFuck Facebook.