6 ms·

What if your service requires the tracking?

by Kiro 9y ago

floatingatoll 9y ago
Then you’d be permitted to do so. Facebook Messenger’s chat with your friends service does not depend on tracking, for example, so this argument doesn’t apply to Facebook.
- star-castle 9y ago
  What do you mean by "does not depend on tracking"? Do you mean that you can conceive of a way to implement the service as it appears to the user, without tracking? Because Facebook can certainly inject tracking into their chat app. Given Facebook, I assume it's already the case that if I type "let's get married" and then erase those words and never send them, that Facebook's going to start showing me advertisements for how to pop the question.
  - stedaniels 9y ago
    You assume that, I assume that, these thoughts are a few digits shy of the decimal point of the percentage of people in the world who understand this. It's not commonly known that Facebook track your every conscious and unconscious interactions with their sites, apps, and every other site that has one of their tracking pixels/logins. It's even less commonly known that they gather data from numerous data brokers to enhance the data they have on you.
  - floatingatoll 9y ago
    Tracking is not required to deliver a text message between two contacts who approved each other. Facebook might declare otherwise, but since SMS and IRC both stand as counterexamples of successful text chat services that do not inherently depend on tracking, they would likely lose their case.
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  Define "doesn't depend on" because I could easily make the argument that Messenger's chat does require tracking location for example to increase security and to fight spam. By not opting in to tracking of location, you degrading the quality of the service and affecting other people. i.e. Without this tracking, the quality of Messenger is affected, and therefore, by definition, the service cannot be provided without it.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    That's fine, but then FB can only use that location for increasing security and fighting spam. Slurping information based on an excuse and then using it for something else is explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
zdragnar 9y ago
Consent isn't required for data collection that is necessary for the service to work. However, you have to be prepared to defend in court that it IS necessary. As such, trackers in 3rd-party advertising network code probably won't count as necessary; it's necessary for the ad network, but it is not necessary for the website displaying the advertisements, as proven by ad-blockers. Likewise, the facebook like button and other "plugin" components aren't "necessary", they merely add value to the existing content / features, and must therefor be entirely opt-in. At least, that's my understanding, which is entirely too facile to be taken as legal advice. EDIT: As petercooper pointed out below, in addition to proving necessity, you must still also prove in court that you have balanced the necessity against users' rights and interests. As such, I no longer feel confident to say I even have a clue as to what is legal and what is not, for FB or for anyone else, until there's a big enough court case to set precedent.
- star-castle 9y ago
  > but it is not necessary for the website displaying the advertisements, as proven by ad-blockers. when I was a child I stole a toy from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is still around. Therefore, Wal-Mart's entire existence as a store does not depend on any kind of anti-theft measures, and it should be illegal for them to film my entrance and exit.
  - PuffinBlue 9y ago
    This is an interesting choice of counter-argument. Firstly three things: 1) Laws don't exist in isolation 2) Long standing law says theft is illegal and stores can take steps to limit it. 3) This new law (GDPR) says you can't take users details and use them unless necessary to provide your service. With this new GDPR law it's the little guy, the user, that get protection from something of value being taken from them and exploited - their personal details. So, extending the above counter-argument it is also true to say that like Walmart, the singular 'theft' of personal details might not be terminal for the user. But just like the law recognises the theft of material goods and it's potential harm (even in the case of a singal instance), it now recognises the 'taking' of personal data as harmful (also even a single instance). Extending the argument further, the GDPR takes the stance that one entity has been taking something of value from another without true compensation for the value of that something. When we realise that what has been taken from users has value and that users haven't been fairly compensated for that value, it becomes obvious that a set of entities have based a business model on profiting off another set without fair compensation. The GDPR now limits that behaviour and business model to return balance to the 'contract' between the two parties. Users get to use a service by providing the minimum needed for that service to be provided.
e12e 9y ago
Required means for example that you need a shipping address to ship a product. Not that you need location data in order to build a profile used for various undeclared, vague purposes - or for an unrelated purpose. I don't use fb in order to watch ads. Fb shows ads on order to finance the service. They can offer a paid option to cover the cost of serving pictures of adorable kittens.

What if your service requires the tracking?

by Kiro 9y ago

What if your service requires the tracking?

Then you’d be permitted to do so. Facebook Messenger’s chat with your friends service does not depend on tracking, for example, so this argument doesn’t apply to Facebook.

star-castle 9y ago
What do you mean by "does not depend on tracking"? Do you mean that you can conceive of a way to implement the service as it appears to the user, without tracking? Because Facebook can certainly inject tracking into their chat app. Given Facebook, I assume it's already the case that if I type "let's get married" and then erase those words and never send them, that Facebook's going to start showing me advertisements for how to pop the question.
- stedaniels 9y ago
  You assume that, I assume that, these thoughts are a few digits shy of the decimal point of the percentage of people in the world who understand this. It's not commonly known that Facebook track your every conscious and unconscious interactions with their sites, apps, and every other site that has one of their tracking pixels/logins. It's even less commonly known that they gather data from numerous data brokers to enhance the data they have on you.
- floatingatoll 9y ago
  Tracking is not required to deliver a text message between two contacts who approved each other. Facebook might declare otherwise, but since SMS and IRC both stand as counterexamples of successful text chat services that do not inherently depend on tracking, they would likely lose their case.
jasonlotito 9y ago
Define "doesn't depend on" because I could easily make the argument that Messenger's chat does require tracking location for example to increase security and to fight spam. By not opting in to tracking of location, you degrading the quality of the service and affecting other people. i.e. Without this tracking, the quality of Messenger is affected, and therefore, by definition, the service cannot be provided without it.
- icebraining 9y ago
  That's fine, but then FB can only use that location for increasing security and fighting spam. Slurping information based on an excuse and then using it for something else is explicitly prohibited by the GDPR.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

zdragnar 9y ago

Consent isn't required for data collection that is necessary for the service to work. However, you have to be prepared to defend in court that it IS necessary. As such, trackers in 3rd-party advertising network code probably won't count as necessary; it's necessary for the ad network, but it is not necessary for the website displaying the advertisements, as proven by ad-blockers. Likewise, the facebook like button and other "plugin" components aren't "necessary", they merely add value to the existing content / features, and must therefor be entirely opt-in. At least, that's my understanding, which is entirely too facile to be taken as legal advice. EDIT: As petercooper pointed out below, in addition to proving necessity, you must still also prove in court that you have balanced the necessity against users' rights and interests. As such, I no longer feel confident to say I even have a clue as to what is legal and what is not, for FB or for anyone else, until there's a big enough court case to set precedent.

star-castle 9y ago
> but it is not necessary for the website displaying the advertisements, as proven by ad-blockers. when I was a child I stole a toy from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is still around. Therefore, Wal-Mart's entire existence as a store does not depend on any kind of anti-theft measures, and it should be illegal for them to film my entrance and exit.
- PuffinBlue 9y ago
  This is an interesting choice of counter-argument. Firstly three things: 1) Laws don't exist in isolation 2) Long standing law says theft is illegal and stores can take steps to limit it. 3) This new law (GDPR) says you can't take users details and use them unless necessary to provide your service. With this new GDPR law it's the little guy, the user, that get protection from something of value being taken from them and exploited - their personal details. So, extending the above counter-argument it is also true to say that like Walmart, the singular 'theft' of personal details might not be terminal for the user. But just like the law recognises the theft of material goods and it's potential harm (even in the case of a singal instance), it now recognises the 'taking' of personal data as harmful (also even a single instance). Extending the argument further, the GDPR takes the stance that one entity has been taking something of value from another without true compensation for the value of that something. When we realise that what has been taken from users has value and that users haven't been fairly compensated for that value, it becomes obvious that a set of entities have based a business model on profiting off another set without fair compensation. The GDPR now limits that behaviour and business model to return balance to the 'contract' between the two parties. Users get to use a service by providing the minimum needed for that service to be provided.

e12e 9y ago

Required means for example that you need a shipping address to ship a product. Not that you need location data in order to build a profile used for various undeclared, vague purposes - or for an unrelated purpose. I don't use fb in order to watch ads. Fb shows ads on order to finance the service. They can offer a paid option to cover the cost of serving pictures of adorable kittens.