5 ms·

It doesn't seem to comply with the letter of the law though, based on the requirement of "freely given, non-conditional consent".

by dbbk 8y ago

wang_li 8y ago
What does it even mean to be conditional? Is the EU saying that FB has to provide their service to Europeans? Does the EU also require that businesses sell their services and products at a loss? Doesn't FB have some right to deny usage of their service to those who choose not to abide by FB's policies? Whether it's disapproval of tracking or behavior violations, it seems like FB should be able to say they don't want to provide their service to particular individuals.
- vidarh 8y ago
  They can choose to not provide service to EU citizens. If they provide service to EU citizens, then with that comes limitations on what rights the have under EU law to pick and choose which EU citizens they want to provide service to. Nobody is forcing them to serve the EU market.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Their choices are to either be GDPR-complient, or to completely bar all EU users from accessing Facebook. They cannot use tracking opt-in as a requirement for access.
    - cabaalis 8y ago
      American here; I just don't quite understand the premise. "Here is what you are giving us, and here is what you're getting in return" seems perfectly legit to me. If this interpretation of the law is correct, then the government is essentially saying the "in return" portion has to be eliminated. Which seems to be against the idea of trade.
      - quadrangle 8y ago
        Are you suggesting that somehow any law is inherently wrong if it regulates trade at all? Trade is a means to the end of having healthy, productive populations. It's not something to prioritize above all else, especially in cases where trade hurts the well-being of populations. In the specific case of Facebook, near-zero of the users actually understand either what they are giving or the full extent of what they are getting or not (especially since the latter changes constantly as FB alters their policies and algorithms etc). So, it's more like "give us stuff you don't understand with ramifications you haven't thought about, and you get a complex, somewhat unpredictable, changing service." This is nothing like the theoretical trade between two participants with equal power and complete information.
        cabaalis 8y ago
        Using strictly my interpretation of what I read above, if the person decides not to allow their information to be used by the service, the service is not allowed to deny them use. That's the part I think is an issue, and of course I may be misinterpreting. I have purchased a house, and used a mortgage to do so. In getting that mortgage, I was presented with reams and reams of paper that I had to agree to and sign. The basic facts of the loan, however, were mandated by the government that they be disclosed to me in as simple and straightforward terms as possible. That mandate for disclosure should be sufficient for a person to decide to do business with a service, regardless of the nature of what is being transacted. If what I read here is accurate, it's akin to me saying "No, I won't sign any of this. Now give me my keys."
        bulatb 8y ago
        In your bank analogy, the mortgage terms would say you have to let the bank install a camera in your bedroom. No camera, no keys. The bank is not required to give you a mortgage. The regulation says that if they want to offer one, they can't include "No camera, no keys" as a condition.
      - KozmoNau7 8y ago
        One of the points of the GDPR is that you cannot make usage of your service contingent on giving up your privacy, unless your service very specifically requires the user to give up personal details in order to it to even function. Strava is a good example, it does not work without GPS position, otherwise it cannot track your bike routes. But Facebook does not require tracking to work. It does not require you to give them any personal details at all in order to work. It would work just fine even if everyone gave them fake emails, phone numbers, birth dates and even fake names. Thus they cannot make giving up privacy a requirement for using their service. Besides that, this ToS update thing is absolutely not GDPR compliant. It does not list the things personal data will be used for. It hides the opt-out (to the face tracking) behind a dark pattern small "options" text and makes the default action opt-in. The list goes on. This is simply an effort from FB to muddy the waters and sow doubt about opt-in and GDPR consequences. They will have to provide proper GDPR opt-in screens come the 25th, or they will be fined for non-compliance.

It doesn't seem to comply with the letter of the law though, based on the requirement of "freely given, non-conditional consent".

by dbbk 8y ago

It doesn't seem to comply with the letter of the law though, based on the requirement of "freely given, non-conditional consent".

wang_li 8y ago

What does it even mean to be conditional? Is the EU saying that FB has to provide their service to Europeans? Does the EU also require that businesses sell their services and products at a loss? Doesn't FB have some right to deny usage of their service to those who choose not to abide by FB's policies? Whether it's disapproval of tracking or behavior violations, it seems like FB should be able to say they don't want to provide their service to particular individuals.

vidarh 8y ago
They can choose to not provide service to EU citizens. If they provide service to EU citizens, then with that comes limitations on what rights the have under EU law to pick and choose which EU citizens they want to provide service to. Nobody is forcing them to serve the EU market.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Their choices are to either be GDPR-complient, or to completely bar all EU users from accessing Facebook. They cannot use tracking opt-in as a requirement for access.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    American here; I just don't quite understand the premise. "Here is what you are giving us, and here is what you're getting in return" seems perfectly legit to me. If this interpretation of the law is correct, then the government is essentially saying the "in return" portion has to be eliminated. Which seems to be against the idea of trade.
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      Are you suggesting that somehow any law is inherently wrong if it regulates trade at all? Trade is a means to the end of having healthy, productive populations. It's not something to prioritize above all else, especially in cases where trade hurts the well-being of populations. In the specific case of Facebook, near-zero of the users actually understand either what they are giving or the full extent of what they are getting or not (especially since the latter changes constantly as FB alters their policies and algorithms etc). So, it's more like "give us stuff you don't understand with ramifications you haven't thought about, and you get a complex, somewhat unpredictable, changing service." This is nothing like the theoretical trade between two participants with equal power and complete information.
      - cabaalis 8y ago
        Using strictly my interpretation of what I read above, if the person decides not to allow their information to be used by the service, the service is not allowed to deny them use. That's the part I think is an issue, and of course I may be misinterpreting. I have purchased a house, and used a mortgage to do so. In getting that mortgage, I was presented with reams and reams of paper that I had to agree to and sign. The basic facts of the loan, however, were mandated by the government that they be disclosed to me in as simple and straightforward terms as possible. That mandate for disclosure should be sufficient for a person to decide to do business with a service, regardless of the nature of what is being transacted. If what I read here is accurate, it's akin to me saying "No, I won't sign any of this. Now give me my keys."
        bulatb 8y ago
        In your bank analogy, the mortgage terms would say you have to let the bank install a camera in your bedroom. No camera, no keys. The bank is not required to give you a mortgage. The regulation says that if they want to offer one, they can't include "No camera, no keys" as a condition.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      One of the points of the GDPR is that you cannot make usage of your service contingent on giving up your privacy, unless your service very specifically requires the user to give up personal details in order to it to even function. Strava is a good example, it does not work without GPS position, otherwise it cannot track your bike routes. But Facebook does not require tracking to work. It does not require you to give them any personal details at all in order to work. It would work just fine even if everyone gave them fake emails, phone numbers, birth dates and even fake names. Thus they cannot make giving up privacy a requirement for using their service. Besides that, this ToS update thing is absolutely not GDPR compliant. It does not list the things personal data will be used for. It hides the opt-out (to the face tracking) behind a dark pattern small "options" text and makes the default action opt-in. The list goes on. This is simply an effort from FB to muddy the waters and sow doubt about opt-in and GDPR consequences. They will have to provide proper GDPR opt-in screens come the 25th, or they will be fined for non-compliance.