4 ms·

If this was about tracking and informed consent, then the illegal ity is there https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-b

If this was about tracking and informed consent, then the illegal ity is there https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-... There was no consent because tracking was not opt-in but opt out. More recently regarding user personal details and lack of consent, again deemed illegal in Germany https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-personal-data-privacy-settings-ruled-illegal-german-court https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-... The pattern I see is that europe considers facebook's methods to commoditize users' data to be unreasonable and will be regulated.

mrlala 9y ago
>There was no consent Voluntarily putting your info on a free site is the consent. Would you also cry "illegal" if HN sold your post history, which they have tied to your IP address, which they can easily link to who you are?
- heretoo 9y ago
  If it mattered to me, was necessary, and i was in the right legally, then I would need to. Each country has its own laws covering this situation. Giving someone personal information still restricts them legally irrespective of what they think i've consented to or their own definition of consent. The legal system has its own opinion.
- eftychis 9y ago
  A bit of a nitpick, but the Hackernews post history and comments are publicly available. Most of, if not all, privacy law treats public data differently. Now the majority of Facebook data, which is visible only to a selected group of individuals, can not contradict privacy laws of a country. Despite whatever agreement you signed. Law trumps user agreements. As an extreme example I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide. So it does not matter what Facebook made you sign it is likely they committed (and still do) a crime in most European countries. For the U.S. the waters appear extremely blurry from what I understand... But I can not offer an opinion. If there is a lawyer/ privacy expert to pitch in this discussion that would be nice.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    > I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide This sounds as if nobody can agree to voluntarily take part in a potentially fatal experiment, like testing a potent medicine or be a test pilot. I believe legal provisions exist here.
    - heretoo 9y ago
      That depends on the law in each individual legal region (most probably country). For example, I believe Euthanasia is legal in some European countries. Even the opposite can be true. Life saving medication may be illegal in one country but another provides it without restriction.
      - eftychis 9y ago
        Kind of sums up my reply. Generally, if you know or there is enough suspicion the cure is going to harm or kill one and euthanasia is out of the picture then you are liable. That's why the whole process exists about medical trials. One nice window here is that you can in general experiment on yourself (people have and are doing that). Depends on the framework, but good point. Anyways, my point here is you can not override law (or you shouldn't be able to).
        heretoo 9y ago
        Absolutety.
    - Closey 9y ago
      At least in the UK you can’t sign away your health and safety rights. Even if the job is dangerous the employer still has a duty of care. Having said this there are some job roles that are excluded from specific parts of the legislation due to their unique nature (e.g. the Army)
jlmorton 9y ago
That's a different issue, though, and unrelated to this thread.
- heretoo 9y ago
  It is relevant and related to their track record regarding how they treat user privacy, what data they have previously released to third parties, and what their current legal standing is with regards to the same issue, especially in light of Cambridge Analytica.
  - lanevorockz 9y ago
    It's not, I recommend you to create your company account in Facebook and be horrified on the amount of information that you can collect from anyone.
    - heretoo 9y ago
      I was addressing the comment "they knew it was illegal" and the response "what .. was illegal?". The two links suggest awareness by Facebook of the illegality. So, where is the irrelevance of the two links with regards to the privacy concerns highlighted by this whole story?

mrlala 9y ago

>There was no consent Voluntarily putting your info on a free site is the consent. Would you also cry "illegal" if HN sold your post history, which they have tied to your IP address, which they can easily link to who you are?

heretoo 9y ago
If it mattered to me, was necessary, and i was in the right legally, then I would need to. Each country has its own laws covering this situation. Giving someone personal information still restricts them legally irrespective of what they think i've consented to or their own definition of consent. The legal system has its own opinion.
eftychis 9y ago
A bit of a nitpick, but the Hackernews post history and comments are publicly available. Most of, if not all, privacy law treats public data differently. Now the majority of Facebook data, which is visible only to a selected group of individuals, can not contradict privacy laws of a country. Despite whatever agreement you signed. Law trumps user agreements. As an extreme example I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide. So it does not matter what Facebook made you sign it is likely they committed (and still do) a crime in most European countries. For the U.S. the waters appear extremely blurry from what I understand... But I can not offer an opinion. If there is a lawyer/ privacy expert to pitch in this discussion that would be nice.
- nine_k 9y ago
  > I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide This sounds as if nobody can agree to voluntarily take part in a potentially fatal experiment, like testing a potent medicine or be a test pilot. I believe legal provisions exist here.
  - heretoo 9y ago
    That depends on the law in each individual legal region (most probably country). For example, I believe Euthanasia is legal in some European countries. Even the opposite can be true. Life saving medication may be illegal in one country but another provides it without restriction.
    - eftychis 9y ago
      Kind of sums up my reply. Generally, if you know or there is enough suspicion the cure is going to harm or kill one and euthanasia is out of the picture then you are liable. That's why the whole process exists about medical trials. One nice window here is that you can in general experiment on yourself (people have and are doing that). Depends on the framework, but good point. Anyways, my point here is you can not override law (or you shouldn't be able to).
      - heretoo 9y ago
        Absolutety.
  - Closey 9y ago
    At least in the UK you can’t sign away your health and safety rights. Even if the job is dangerous the employer still has a duty of care. Having said this there are some job roles that are excluded from specific parts of the legislation due to their unique nature (e.g. the Army)

jlmorton 9y ago

That's a different issue, though, and unrelated to this thread.

heretoo 9y ago
It is relevant and related to their track record regarding how they treat user privacy, what data they have previously released to third parties, and what their current legal standing is with regards to the same issue, especially in light of Cambridge Analytica.
- lanevorockz 9y ago
  It's not, I recommend you to create your company account in Facebook and be horrified on the amount of information that you can collect from anyone.
  - heretoo 9y ago
    I was addressing the comment "they knew it was illegal" and the response "what .. was illegal?". The two links suggest awareness by Facebook of the illegality. So, where is the irrelevance of the two links with regards to the privacy concerns highlighted by this whole story?