5 ms·
Denial of service is a perfectly valid route to GDPR compliance.
by donatj 9y ago
Denial of service is a perfectly valid route to GDPR compliance.
- brador 9y agoIs 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 9y agoThis assume that they have such shadow profiles...I have yet to see any evidence of it though
- brador 9y agoZuck 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 9y agoDo 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 9y agohttps://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 9y agoThe content of the article presents no evidence, proof or confirmation from FB that such profiles exist
- Domenic_S 9y agoIt 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 9y agoI 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
- mercer 9y agoWhy is assuming the worst not a useful position to take? In particular when it comes to a corporation that doesn't have my best interests as its primary concern (if at all)? I'd argue that, in general, assuming the worst is probably the best starting point. Trust is earned, not the default.
- icebraining 9y agoOnly 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 9y ago> but you can't DoS if it's denied. What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?
- icebraining 9y 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 9y agoAlas, reading donatj's comment again doesn't explain why it's wrong.
- icebraining 9y agoAh, 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 9y ago[deleted]
- donatj 9y agoI can't deny you service if you don't agree to my terms of service? That seems to fundamentally break contract law.