3 ms·

If websites are going to ask for consent to tracking or deny access to the service only allowing to take the data, delete account and leave, the whole thing wil

If websites are going to ask for consent to tracking or deny access to the service only allowing to take the data, delete account and leave, the whole thing will become meaningless. Users will just learn to blindly accept everything, as this is a huge annoyance to them.

_rpd 9y ago
Yes, I thought that the GDPR was explicitly drafted to ensure it wouldn't just become a "more annoying cookie law." Edit: they are doing this before the May 25th deadline.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
The GDPR does not allow you to make access contingent on PII data collection, unless your service cannot possibly work without it.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  I'm not sure why you keep spreading this FUD. The GDPR applies to all personal data, not just tracking data, and Facebook is useless without your personal data. IOW, FB can make access contingent upon agreeing to data collection.
  - drucik 9y ago
    From my understanding user will have to consent both to personal and tracking data separately. So yes, users will agree to sharing the personal data - (name, age, gender etc), as this is essential for the service, in this case social network, to work. However, tracking data for ad purposes will need separate consent as this data is not essential for the service to work. Otherwise GDPR would be another dead letter, wouldn't it?
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    It is not FUD. I work at a major telco/ISP, specifically on ensuring GDPR compliance for a number of applications. Personal information that is deliberately and freely made public by the owner of that data (ie. you, the user) is free to use, both for the service on which you make it public, and for anyone who happens to read it on your publicly visible profile/wall. The reasoning is that you made a deliberate choice to make this information public, meaning you have given consent to public viewing of said data. What this Facebook issue is about, is the collection of personal data that you have not made publicly accessible, because it is private to you. FB is using this data to tailor ads and to modify your feed, giving you politics you agree with, suggesting pages for you to join, and so on. FB is also profiling you and inferring your private information, and using that to track you across the web (on every single web page with an FB "like" button, for instance). They have a disturbingly detailed profile on all of their users, including highly sensitive data such as political standing, sexual preferences, medical history, even possible infidelity. FB is perfectly usable without giving them access to any other personal information than a fake date of birth and a throwaway email account. It is perfectly usable with "targeted ads" turned off. It is perfectly usable without the "optimized news feed", it can just default back to a chronological feed instead. The violation of their users' privacy is not essential to the service FB provides to their users.

_rpd 9y ago

Yes, I thought that the GDPR was explicitly drafted to ensure it wouldn't just become a "more annoying cookie law." Edit: they are doing this before the May 25th deadline.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

The GDPR does not allow you to make access contingent on PII data collection, unless your service cannot possibly work without it.

gamblor956 9y ago
I'm not sure why you keep spreading this FUD. The GDPR applies to all personal data, not just tracking data, and Facebook is useless without your personal data. IOW, FB can make access contingent upon agreeing to data collection.
- drucik 9y ago
  From my understanding user will have to consent both to personal and tracking data separately. So yes, users will agree to sharing the personal data - (name, age, gender etc), as this is essential for the service, in this case social network, to work. However, tracking data for ad purposes will need separate consent as this data is not essential for the service to work. Otherwise GDPR would be another dead letter, wouldn't it?
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  It is not FUD. I work at a major telco/ISP, specifically on ensuring GDPR compliance for a number of applications. Personal information that is deliberately and freely made public by the owner of that data (ie. you, the user) is free to use, both for the service on which you make it public, and for anyone who happens to read it on your publicly visible profile/wall. The reasoning is that you made a deliberate choice to make this information public, meaning you have given consent to public viewing of said data. What this Facebook issue is about, is the collection of personal data that you have not made publicly accessible, because it is private to you. FB is using this data to tailor ads and to modify your feed, giving you politics you agree with, suggesting pages for you to join, and so on. FB is also profiling you and inferring your private information, and using that to track you across the web (on every single web page with an FB "like" button, for instance). They have a disturbingly detailed profile on all of their users, including highly sensitive data such as political standing, sexual preferences, medical history, even possible infidelity. FB is perfectly usable without giving them access to any other personal information than a fake date of birth and a throwaway email account. It is perfectly usable with "targeted ads" turned off. It is perfectly usable without the "optimized news feed", it can just default back to a chronological feed instead. The violation of their users' privacy is not essential to the service FB provides to their users.