4 ms·

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 m

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.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense, although I'm not 100% sure I agree that it doesn't need the information to function. It could be de-identified for the individual, sure. But to actually use the service you need to connect with others, whose identities you must know something about. By following pages or celebrities or whatever you indicate that you are interested in their subject material. So in order to properly use the application you must give up something.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Yes, but clicking "like" on a celebrity's FB page is not personally identifiable information. You cannot use to it discover the person's identity. To connect to other users on a service, I don't need to know any personal details about them, only their chosen username, which can be completely random and have no relation to their identity.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  I disagree what FB would work fine if you gave it no data or fake data! The whole point of FB is for people to exchange data about themselves with their friends and family! If people don’t share any data or just fake data FB doesn’t work. For them to offer their service they also have to make money, so they run ads to do that. And to make the ads useful to people they need data for targeting! And now they allow users to either agree to this deal or download their data, delete Facebook and do whatever they want. Simple as that
bulatb 8y ago
The GDPR effectively outlaws certain business models. "You pay with your data" is one of them.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  No, that business model is still perfectly valid, but the users have to give their unequivocal consent for the business to do this, and the user have to give it freely, ie. you cannot say "you have to opt in to giving us all of your personal data, before you are allowed to use Facebook."
  - bulatb 8y ago
    > you have to opt in to giving us all of your personal data, before you are allowed to use Facebook. Isn't that "you pay with your data"? Or do you mean it would allow things like "$5/month, or free if you consent"?
zerostar07 8y ago
Add to that: the EU is specifically excluding police and security services from GDPR. It's basically making the states the exclusive owners of private data.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  There is a specific regulation applying to law enforcement, in addition to the core GDPR. https://thinkgdpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DIRECTIVE-EU2016680.pdf https://thinkgdpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DIRECTIVE-E...

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.

cabaalis 8y ago
Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense, although I'm not 100% sure I agree that it doesn't need the information to function. It could be de-identified for the individual, sure. But to actually use the service you need to connect with others, whose identities you must know something about. By following pages or celebrities or whatever you indicate that you are interested in their subject material. So in order to properly use the application you must give up something.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Yes, but clicking "like" on a celebrity's FB page is not personally identifiable information. You cannot use to it discover the person's identity. To connect to other users on a service, I don't need to know any personal details about them, only their chosen username, which can be completely random and have no relation to their identity.
rock_hard 8y ago
I disagree what FB would work fine if you gave it no data or fake data! The whole point of FB is for people to exchange data about themselves with their friends and family! If people don’t share any data or just fake data FB doesn’t work. For them to offer their service they also have to make money, so they run ads to do that. And to make the ads useful to people they need data for targeting! And now they allow users to either agree to this deal or download their data, delete Facebook and do whatever they want. Simple as that

bulatb 8y ago

The GDPR effectively outlaws certain business models. "You pay with your data" is one of them.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
No, that business model is still perfectly valid, but the users have to give their unequivocal consent for the business to do this, and the user have to give it freely, ie. you cannot say "you have to opt in to giving us all of your personal data, before you are allowed to use Facebook."
- bulatb 8y ago
  > you have to opt in to giving us all of your personal data, before you are allowed to use Facebook. Isn't that "you pay with your data"? Or do you mean it would allow things like "$5/month, or free if you consent"?

zerostar07 8y ago

Add to that: the EU is specifically excluding police and security services from GDPR. It's basically making the states the exclusive owners of private data.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
There is a specific regulation applying to law enforcement, in addition to the core GDPR. https://thinkgdpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DIRECTIVE-EU2016680.pdf https://thinkgdpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DIRECTIVE-E...