4 ms·

> Even though legally they are in the right Even that is dubious. Law is interpreted by judges for this exact reason: people pushing it to extremes.

groestl 9y ago
What Facebook acquired from their users was "expressed consent", which is notoriously easy to get using dark UI patterns. But the technical community has been using "informed consent" in their definition of malware for a while now, and it is highly questionable if dark UI patterns and "informed consent" are compatible concepts. The legal system (at least in US and EU) needs to catch up to this, but it does. In the EU, the GDPR [0] will require "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject", which is a lot more than Facebook's claim of having "permission". We will see how judges interpret that. [0] https://www.eugdpr.org/ https://www.eugdpr.org/
- pbalau 9y ago
  What the fuck is a "dark ui pattern"? //edit: I googled it.
- soziawa 9y ago
  > What Facebook acquired from their users was "expressed consent" I'm not so sure about that, but that's what courts are for.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    I think that was groestl's point: there is what it literally says on paper, and there is the question of whether users can reasonably be expected to understand this.
    - soziawa 9y ago
      I don't think it was even clear on paper. It never said store forever or even store.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > We will see how judges interpret that. Judges are getting more tech-savvy, and I think lawyers are also getting better at explaining the deceit. There is hope, the question is how long it will take at this point.
jimmaswell 9y ago
I don't see how a popup that asks for permission in clear and simple terms is dubious at all. I don't want to have to print out the terms and conditions, get them notarized with my signature on them, and snailmail them back to the company when I want to use an app's features in the future, but if explicitly consenting to a popup isn't good enough then I fear that's the path we'd be headed down.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > if explicitly consenting to a popup isn't good enough then I fear that's the path we'd be headed down. If the pop-up does not adequately convey the consequences of agreeing, it cannot reasonably be considered a form of consent.
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    If someone sells me a car, and I paint it pink, and they're mad after the fact because they hate pink, did I fail to adequately convey the consequences of their agreeing to sell me the car? I don't think so; they agreed to sell me the car and that should be enough.
    - vanderZwan 9y ago
      I fail to see how your analogy maps to the current situation.
      - jimmaswell 9y ago
        Someone sold a car and it was used in an unexpected way. People agreed to give Facebook data and it was used in unexpected ways.

groestl 9y ago

What Facebook acquired from their users was "expressed consent", which is notoriously easy to get using dark UI patterns. But the technical community has been using "informed consent" in their definition of malware for a while now, and it is highly questionable if dark UI patterns and "informed consent" are compatible concepts. The legal system (at least in US and EU) needs to catch up to this, but it does. In the EU, the GDPR [0] will require "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject", which is a lot more than Facebook's claim of having "permission". We will see how judges interpret that. [0] https://www.eugdpr.org/ https://www.eugdpr.org/

pbalau 9y ago
What the fuck is a "dark ui pattern"? //edit: I googled it.
soziawa 9y ago
> What Facebook acquired from their users was "expressed consent" I'm not so sure about that, but that's what courts are for.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  I think that was groestl's point: there is what it literally says on paper, and there is the question of whether users can reasonably be expected to understand this.
  - soziawa 9y ago
    I don't think it was even clear on paper. It never said store forever or even store.
vanderZwan 9y ago
> We will see how judges interpret that. Judges are getting more tech-savvy, and I think lawyers are also getting better at explaining the deceit. There is hope, the question is how long it will take at this point.

jimmaswell 9y ago

I don't see how a popup that asks for permission in clear and simple terms is dubious at all. I don't want to have to print out the terms and conditions, get them notarized with my signature on them, and snailmail them back to the company when I want to use an app's features in the future, but if explicitly consenting to a popup isn't good enough then I fear that's the path we'd be headed down.

vanderZwan 9y ago
> if explicitly consenting to a popup isn't good enough then I fear that's the path we'd be headed down. If the pop-up does not adequately convey the consequences of agreeing, it cannot reasonably be considered a form of consent.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  If someone sells me a car, and I paint it pink, and they're mad after the fact because they hate pink, did I fail to adequately convey the consequences of their agreeing to sell me the car? I don't think so; they agreed to sell me the car and that should be enough.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    I fail to see how your analogy maps to the current situation.
    - jimmaswell 9y ago
      Someone sold a car and it was used in an unexpected way. People agreed to give Facebook data and it was used in unexpected ways.