11 ms·

It is clear that FB does not plan to be GDPR compliant [1] https://medium.com/@bozhobg/facebook-doesnt-plan-to-be-gdpr-compliant-7f775231c497 https://medium.co

It is clear that FB does not plan to be GDPR compliant [1] https://medium.com/@bozhobg/facebook-doesnt-plan-to-be-gdpr-compliant-7f775231c497 https://medium.com/@bozhobg/facebook-doesnt-plan-to-be-gdpr-...

jacquesm 8y ago
Well, they had a chance. It's a bit like the Titanic aiming straight for the iceberg but in this particular case I don't feel sorry.
- newscracker 8y ago
  I for one would gleefully welcome it sinking. I'd probably throw a large party to many people if, by that time, we have a great privacy focused alternative too (preferably decentralized). Facebook has become a social justice issue (to steal a strong phrase).
donatj 8y ago
Denial of service is a perfectly valid route to GDPR compliance.
- brador 8y ago
  Is it? If they hold personal data of EU citizens in a shadow profile they must allow a way to view and correct or delete it. Head in sand like this approach will remain unacceptable to EU.
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    This assume that they have such shadow profiles...I have yet to see any evidence of it though
    - brador 8y ago
      Zuck specifically answered questions covering shadow profiles during his inquisition. They exist and are used even if that user is not a Facebook user. It’s not an unknown.
      - Shish2k 8y ago
        Do you have a source for that? I watched the both hearings end to end and I only recall shadow profiles being mentioned once, and the answer was "I’m not familiar with that"...
        Domenic_S 8y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-profiles-zuckerberg-congress-data-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-...
        rock_hard 8y ago
        The content of the article presents no evidence, proof or confirmation from FB that such profiles exist
        Domenic_S 8y ago
        It depends on what you mean by "profile". I've got a feeling you're using a very specific definition and we're not going to come to an agreement. For me, a shadow profile is a set of data that can be correlated with you personally after the fact if you do decide to sign up for an account.
        rock_hard 8y ago
        I can agree with you on that definition and have yet to see evidence that they do what you say. I think we need to distinguish what data collection means...just because you have a Facebook cookie in your browser which causes the browser to fire a request everytime there is a call to facebooks domains and therefore send meta information about OS, Browser, IP, etc (which is hard to turn off without reinventing the web) doesn’t mean FB (just like any other website that uses cookies) does anything with that meta data or stores it at all. I think we need to be careful about judging what they technically do and what they actually do! Many people in this debate default to assuming the worst...which is never a useful position to take. I would suggest assuming the good intent on FBs behalf and then reverse engineer from there
- icebraining 8y ago
  Only if the personal data is necessary to provide the service. And "my business model makes it necessary" doesn't cut it. Otherwise you need consent, but you can't DoS if it's denied. EDIT: removed wrong link.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    > but you can't DoS if it's denied. What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?
    - icebraining 8y ago
      > What does that mean? It means you can't deny service if the consent is not granted by the user. > Why did you link to your parent comment? Because in it I try to explain why donatj's theory that FB can simply deny service if people don't consent seems incorrect to me.
      - tedunangst 8y ago
        Alas, reading donatj's comment again doesn't explain why it's wrong.
        icebraining 8y ago
        Ah, damn, I linked to the wrong comment :| Well, here are the two where I try to explain my view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031513
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - donatj 8y ago
    I can't deny you service if you don't agree to my terms of service? That seems to fundamentally break contract law.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
Fuck 'em, then. We functioned perfectly fine before FB started, and we will function perfectly fine after FB is gone.
xxpor 8y ago
The maximum penalty is 4% of WW revenue, right? What happens if FB just decides to pay that in perpetuity?
- apexalpha 8y ago
  Then after 25 cases they'd be bankrupt for the year.
  - xxpor 8y ago
    Oh, it's per incident. That makes more sense.

jacquesm 8y ago

Well, they had a chance. It's a bit like the Titanic aiming straight for the iceberg but in this particular case I don't feel sorry.

newscracker 8y ago
I for one would gleefully welcome it sinking. I'd probably throw a large party to many people if, by that time, we have a great privacy focused alternative too (preferably decentralized). Facebook has become a social justice issue (to steal a strong phrase).

donatj 8y ago

Denial of service is a perfectly valid route to GDPR compliance.

brador 8y ago
Is it? If they hold personal data of EU citizens in a shadow profile they must allow a way to view and correct or delete it. Head in sand like this approach will remain unacceptable to EU.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  This assume that they have such shadow profiles...I have yet to see any evidence of it though
  - brador 8y ago
    Zuck specifically answered questions covering shadow profiles during his inquisition. They exist and are used even if that user is not a Facebook user. It’s not an unknown.
    - Shish2k 8y ago
      Do you have a source for that? I watched the both hearings end to end and I only recall shadow profiles being mentioned once, and the answer was "I’m not familiar with that"...
      - Domenic_S 8y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-profiles-zuckerberg-congress-data-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-...
        rock_hard 8y ago
        The content of the article presents no evidence, proof or confirmation from FB that such profiles exist
        Domenic_S 8y ago
        It depends on what you mean by "profile". I've got a feeling you're using a very specific definition and we're not going to come to an agreement. For me, a shadow profile is a set of data that can be correlated with you personally after the fact if you do decide to sign up for an account.
        rock_hard 8y ago
        I can agree with you on that definition and have yet to see evidence that they do what you say. I think we need to distinguish what data collection means...just because you have a Facebook cookie in your browser which causes the browser to fire a request everytime there is a call to facebooks domains and therefore send meta information about OS, Browser, IP, etc (which is hard to turn off without reinventing the web) doesn’t mean FB (just like any other website that uses cookies) does anything with that meta data or stores it at all. I think we need to be careful about judging what they technically do and what they actually do! Many people in this debate default to assuming the worst...which is never a useful position to take. I would suggest assuming the good intent on FBs behalf and then reverse engineer from there
icebraining 8y ago
Only if the personal data is necessary to provide the service. And "my business model makes it necessary" doesn't cut it. Otherwise you need consent, but you can't DoS if it's denied. EDIT: removed wrong link.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  > but you can't DoS if it's denied. What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > What does that mean? It means you can't deny service if the consent is not granted by the user. > Why did you link to your parent comment? Because in it I try to explain why donatj's theory that FB can simply deny service if people don't consent seems incorrect to me.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      Alas, reading donatj's comment again doesn't explain why it's wrong.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Ah, damn, I linked to the wrong comment :| Well, here are the two where I try to explain my view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17031513
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- donatj 8y ago
  I can't deny you service if you don't agree to my terms of service? That seems to fundamentally break contract law.

KozmoNau7 8y ago

Fuck 'em, then. We functioned perfectly fine before FB started, and we will function perfectly fine after FB is gone.

xxpor 8y ago

The maximum penalty is 4% of WW revenue, right? What happens if FB just decides to pay that in perpetuity?

apexalpha 8y ago
Then after 25 cases they'd be bankrupt for the year.
- xxpor 8y ago
  Oh, it's per incident. That makes more sense.