5 ms·

Opt-in doesn’t take effect until May 25, so there’s nothing legally wrong here. It’s also not disingenuous for Facebook to explain the benefits of the service

Opt-in doesn’t take effect until May 25, so there’s nothing legally wrong here. It’s also not disingenuous for Facebook to explain the benefits of the service to the user so that they understand the impact before they disable it. TechCrunch has been one of the leaders of the anti-Facebook bandwagon recently, so it must be serving them well. I’d imagine they are getting lots of clicks to these articles, and, ironically, are making substantial amounts of money from showing lots of highly targeted ads on them. They are also undoubtedly using just as many if not more third party tracking tools than the sites they like to skewer for this practice. One would be wise to read their anti-Facebook articles with the understanding that they have an economic incentive to play to their audience by placing a negative spin on everything the company does.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> there’s nothing legally wrong here This attitude is mirrored at Facebook, in Zuckerberg and throughout its culture: Abuse the user to (and past) the limits of the law. It is why nothing will change until the EU or the DoJ break Facebook up.
- downandout 9y ago
  Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law? Many times. The FTC consent decree [1], the violations of Belgian law [2] and the violations of German law [3] come to mind. (In each case, a court ruled or supervised a settlement. In each case, Facebook continued breaking the law.) There are many more. Facebook's culture is broken. The precedence for such lawless cultures is they get broken up or they go Enron. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook-loses-belgian-privacy-case-faces-fine-of-up-to-125-million-idUSKCN1G01LG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook... [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-privacy-settings-terms-of-use-brought-vzbz/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-pri...
    - downandout 9y ago
      With regard to the FTC, the agreement with them was reached specifically to keep it out of court. No judge or jury ruled on the merits of the allegations. A judge may have been involved, but only to approve the terms of the settlement. To my knowledge no US court has ever made the kind of finding you were implying they have. With regard to the European countries, I guess I should have been more specific in my question in limiting it to the US. Finding of fault by European courts/governments against large US corporations is nothing new and doesn’t imply any illegal intent on the part of the accused. Cash-starved, often socialist governments found throughout Europe will always find ways to use their broadly written laws to obtain badly needed government revenue from US corporations. In fact GDPR is just a massive expansion of this strategy.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        Convenient that all the courts and regulators, acting under court supervision, that have ruled against Facebook are illegitimate. First time, too, I've heard of modern Germany being referred to as lawless.
        downandout 9y ago
        I didn’t refer to Germany as lawless. In fact they have gone the other direction - they have laws on the books that are so broadly written that any foreign corporation can be caught up in them without intent to violate them. It’s also rather convenient that with GDPR, Europe has created a sweeping regulation that happens to disproportionately affect and is sure to generate massive fines from deep-pocketed corporations based outside of Europe. Do you think that is a coincidence?
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Do you think that is a coincidence? Facebook broke laws, was fined by courts and regulators in multiple countries, kept breaking laws, made a mess on both sides of the Atlantic, lied about what happened and then tried to throw it under the rug. Meanwhile, leaks from inside show zero repentance or even cognizance among employees of something having gone wrong. The EU is addressing this failure with regulation; we'll solve it more decisively by breaking Facebook up.
jgtrosh 9y ago
It's not legally wrong, but in the light of recent public outcry it comes off a slap in the face. A legal one, true. Maybe techcrunch has some incentive in pushing this content and should disclaim it, but it doesn't change the opinion that users can have of that action.
Privvy 9y ago
There is something legally wrong in multiple EU member states: Collecting biometric data without user consent was ruled illegal. > Facebook has introduced this [facial recognition] function in Europe without informing users and acquiring the necessary consent. Unambiguous consent from those affected is required by the European as well as the German data protection law. > For users whose biometric facial characteristics have already been incorporated into the database operated by Facebook, this consent needs to be acquired retrospectively. > The preliminaries for legal action are now being prepared, -- The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, 2011. As for the current bandwagon of hate, this is basic news cycle stuff, and it would be hard to single out anyone. In my opinion, Facebook deserves this extra negative scrutiny, and has to make up for this lost trust with better privacy controls and privacy-friendly PR pushes. This latest breach of the EU data protection laws is not helping users and public perception (but probably helps Facebook gather data while it can).

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> there’s nothing legally wrong here This attitude is mirrored at Facebook, in Zuckerberg and throughout its culture: Abuse the user to (and past) the limits of the law. It is why nothing will change until the EU or the DoJ break Facebook up.

downandout 9y ago
Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users” “past” the limits of the law? Many times. The FTC consent decree [1], the violations of Belgian law [2] and the violations of German law [3] come to mind. (In each case, a court ruled or supervised a settlement. In each case, Facebook continued breaking the law.) There are many more. Facebook's culture is broken. The precedence for such lawless cultures is they get broken up or they go Enron. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook-loses-belgian-privacy-case-faces-fine-of-up-to-125-million-idUSKCN1G01LG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-belgium/facebook... [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-privacy-settings-terms-of-use-brought-vzbz/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-pri...
  - downandout 9y ago
    With regard to the FTC, the agreement with them was reached specifically to keep it out of court. No judge or jury ruled on the merits of the allegations. A judge may have been involved, but only to approve the terms of the settlement. To my knowledge no US court has ever made the kind of finding you were implying they have. With regard to the European countries, I guess I should have been more specific in my question in limiting it to the US. Finding of fault by European courts/governments against large US corporations is nothing new and doesn’t imply any illegal intent on the part of the accused. Cash-starved, often socialist governments found throughout Europe will always find ways to use their broadly written laws to obtain badly needed government revenue from US corporations. In fact GDPR is just a massive expansion of this strategy.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      Convenient that all the courts and regulators, acting under court supervision, that have ruled against Facebook are illegitimate. First time, too, I've heard of modern Germany being referred to as lawless.
      - downandout 9y ago
        I didn’t refer to Germany as lawless. In fact they have gone the other direction - they have laws on the books that are so broadly written that any foreign corporation can be caught up in them without intent to violate them. It’s also rather convenient that with GDPR, Europe has created a sweeping regulation that happens to disproportionately affect and is sure to generate massive fines from deep-pocketed corporations based outside of Europe. Do you think that is a coincidence?
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Do you think that is a coincidence? Facebook broke laws, was fined by courts and regulators in multiple countries, kept breaking laws, made a mess on both sides of the Atlantic, lied about what happened and then tried to throw it under the rug. Meanwhile, leaks from inside show zero repentance or even cognizance among employees of something having gone wrong. The EU is addressing this failure with regulation; we'll solve it more decisively by breaking Facebook up.

jgtrosh 9y ago

It's not legally wrong, but in the light of recent public outcry it comes off a slap in the face. A legal one, true. Maybe techcrunch has some incentive in pushing this content and should disclaim it, but it doesn't change the opinion that users can have of that action.

Privvy 9y ago

There is something legally wrong in multiple EU member states: Collecting biometric data without user consent was ruled illegal. > Facebook has introduced this [facial recognition] function in Europe without informing users and acquiring the necessary consent. Unambiguous consent from those affected is required by the European as well as the German data protection law. > For users whose biometric facial characteristics have already been incorporated into the database operated by Facebook, this consent needs to be acquired retrospectively. > The preliminaries for legal action are now being prepared, -- The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, 2011. As for the current bandwagon of hate, this is basic news cycle stuff, and it would be hard to single out anyone. In my opinion, Facebook deserves this extra negative scrutiny, and has to make up for this lost trust with better privacy controls and privacy-friendly PR pushes. This latest breach of the EU data protection laws is not helping users and public perception (but probably helps Facebook gather data while it can).