5 ms·

As far as I know, the GDPR stipulates that you cannot deny people access to you service if they do not opt-in to tracking, unless the service you provide is ver

As far as I know, the GDPR stipulates that you cannot deny people access to you service if they do not opt-in to tracking, unless the service you provide is very specifically a tracking service. Tracking is not the primary service Facebook provides to their users, so the GDPR will not allow them to bar access for users who do not opt-in to being tracked.

lainga 9y ago
I believe the GDPR only forbids denying access to users' data if they don't opt-in (Art. 15), and that's why Facebook has the options to either - accept ToS and use Facebook, or - deny ToS, download user data and delete account (under 'More options'). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  No, because this ToS thing is not actually a GDPR-compliant opt-in. It's a routine ToS update, with a few tracking things tacked at the end of it. Companies have always been able to deny users access if they don't accept a ToS, but clicking "I Accept" to the ToS shown in the screenshots is not a GDPR opt-in, and I cannot stress that enough. It is just a ToS update, which does not cover GDPR-compliant opt-in to tracking. The tracking questions following it are also not GDPR-compliant. They will have to ask properly for opt-in when the 25th rolls around, or they will face fines for non-compliance. FB is trying to muddy the waters with this ToS update, probably to fool people into thinking "well, I already accepted a bunch of stuff a couple of weeks ago, I'll just accept this GDPR thing as well". It seems that you've bought in to their misinformation campaign. The GDPR stipulates that you cannot make access to your service contingent on opting in to tracking, unless you service cannot possibly function without tracking. Strava would be a good example, it cannot possibly work without tracking a user's GPS location. But FB works just fine with no tracking at all. The only thing that would be compromised is be FB's business model, and that's just tough luck, they'll have to come up with something better, a model that doesn't infringing on people's privacy. Source: I work for a telco/ISP and we are extremely aware of GDPR and the consequences, and we've been working diligently for ~2 years to make our entire business GDPR-compliant. Training courses and tests of our understanding of the rules are mandatory for everyone, from customer support to CEO.
  - lainga 9y ago
    I originally was of your mindset as well (FB is in breach of compliance right now) but could not find any mention in the GDPR articles or recitals of "denial of access", "availability", etc. to back my views up. I would tend to agree with you if I could find a source for the stipulation in your 6th paragraph.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      "Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1. See Recital 42’s reference to “without detriment”, Recital 43’s discussion of “freely given” consent, and Article 7(2) prohibition of conditionality. See also the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s draft guidance on consent, 31 March 2017, p. 21, which clearly prohibits so-called “tracking walls”."
frockington 9y ago
And how would Europe make an American company offer services to Europeans? Is there a legal pathway to do this or would their court summons be used to level out chairs in FB HQ?
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  FB is already in a shitstorm of bad PR. They have a very easy choice actually. Either abide by the rules if they want to service EU citizens, or GTFO. If they want to give up a couple hundred million users and hand them over to the GDPR-compliant competition, that's their choice. It would be monumentally stupid, though. FB needs EU users a lot more than EU users need FB, but they're trying very hard to spin the press to make it appear the other way around. It's like when McDonalds or a similar tax-dodging company threatens to leave a country if they face being forced to actually pay the taxes they owe. Leave millions and millions in profit right there on the table for their competitors to grab? Yeah right, ain't gonna happen.
  - frockington 9y ago
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327185.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327185.stm - McDonalds pulled out of Iceland when it became to expensive. I wonder if the EU is going to price itself out of international technology. The affect would be less than ideal for a continent that preaches globalization
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      They pulled out of one of the smallest markets they could find, as a PR move to "show that they mean business". They had three restaurants in the entire country, and they pulled out because of the financial crisis, not because of taxes. That's hardly a sign that they would pull out of France, Germany or even Denmark. If by "international technology" you mean "blatant disregard for privacy", then good riddance. We don't need that sort of "technology".
      - jacquesm 9y ago

lainga 9y ago

I believe the GDPR only forbids denying access to users' data if they don't opt-in (Art. 15), and that's why Facebook has the options to either - accept ToS and use Facebook, or - deny ToS, download user data and delete account (under 'More options'). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/

KozmoNau7 9y ago
No, because this ToS thing is not actually a GDPR-compliant opt-in. It's a routine ToS update, with a few tracking things tacked at the end of it. Companies have always been able to deny users access if they don't accept a ToS, but clicking "I Accept" to the ToS shown in the screenshots is not a GDPR opt-in, and I cannot stress that enough. It is just a ToS update, which does not cover GDPR-compliant opt-in to tracking. The tracking questions following it are also not GDPR-compliant. They will have to ask properly for opt-in when the 25th rolls around, or they will face fines for non-compliance. FB is trying to muddy the waters with this ToS update, probably to fool people into thinking "well, I already accepted a bunch of stuff a couple of weeks ago, I'll just accept this GDPR thing as well". It seems that you've bought in to their misinformation campaign. The GDPR stipulates that you cannot make access to your service contingent on opting in to tracking, unless you service cannot possibly function without tracking. Strava would be a good example, it cannot possibly work without tracking a user's GPS location. But FB works just fine with no tracking at all. The only thing that would be compromised is be FB's business model, and that's just tough luck, they'll have to come up with something better, a model that doesn't infringing on people's privacy. Source: I work for a telco/ISP and we are extremely aware of GDPR and the consequences, and we've been working diligently for ~2 years to make our entire business GDPR-compliant. Training courses and tests of our understanding of the rules are mandatory for everyone, from customer support to CEO.
- lainga 9y ago
  I originally was of your mindset as well (FB is in breach of compliance right now) but could not find any mention in the GDPR articles or recitals of "denial of access", "availability", etc. to back my views up. I would tend to agree with you if I could find a source for the stipulation in your 6th paragraph.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    "Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1. See Recital 42’s reference to “without detriment”, Recital 43’s discussion of “freely given” consent, and Article 7(2) prohibition of conditionality. See also the UK Information Commissioner’s Office’s draft guidance on consent, 31 March 2017, p. 21, which clearly prohibits so-called “tracking walls”."

frockington 9y ago

And how would Europe make an American company offer services to Europeans? Is there a legal pathway to do this or would their court summons be used to level out chairs in FB HQ?

KozmoNau7 9y ago
FB is already in a shitstorm of bad PR. They have a very easy choice actually. Either abide by the rules if they want to service EU citizens, or GTFO. If they want to give up a couple hundred million users and hand them over to the GDPR-compliant competition, that's their choice. It would be monumentally stupid, though. FB needs EU users a lot more than EU users need FB, but they're trying very hard to spin the press to make it appear the other way around. It's like when McDonalds or a similar tax-dodging company threatens to leave a country if they face being forced to actually pay the taxes they owe. Leave millions and millions in profit right there on the table for their competitors to grab? Yeah right, ain't gonna happen.
- frockington 9y ago
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327185.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327185.stm - McDonalds pulled out of Iceland when it became to expensive. I wonder if the EU is going to price itself out of international technology. The affect would be less than ideal for a continent that preaches globalization
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    They pulled out of one of the smallest markets they could find, as a PR move to "show that they mean business". They had three restaurants in the entire country, and they pulled out because of the financial crisis, not because of taxes. That's hardly a sign that they would pull out of France, Germany or even Denmark. If by "international technology" you mean "blatant disregard for privacy", then good riddance. We don't need that sort of "technology".
    - jacquesm 9y ago