8 ms·
I think Facebook's lawyers have determined that they can use the 'legitimate interest' basis for showing targeted ads to their users [0]. This basis does not r
by MarkMc 8y ago
I think Facebook's lawyers have determined that they can use the 'legitimate interest' basis for showing targeted ads to their users [0]. This basis does not require consent from users except as part of the take-it-or-leave-it initial terms of service.
Here are the parts of the 'legitimate interest' basis which are most useful to Facebook:
The GDPR does not define what factors to take into account when deciding if your purpose is a legitimate interest. It could be as simple as it being legitimate to start up a new business activity, or to grow your business.
So Facebook's lawyers can simply say, "It's in our legitimate interest to maximise advertising revenue".
You need to demonstrate that the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests you have identified. This doesn’t mean that it has to be absolutely essential, but it must be a targeted and proportionate way of achieving your purpose.
Facebook's lawyers can say, "It is necessary for us to use personal information about our users, such as their age and location, in order to maximise our advertising revenue".
The GDPR is clear that the interests of the individual could in particular override your legitimate interests if you intend to process personal data in ways the individual does not reasonably expect.
Facebook's lawyers can say, "People expect that we use their personal information such as age and location to determine what ads to show them, so the interest of the user does not override our legitimate interest of maximising advertising revenue."
[0] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/what-is-the-legitimate-interests-basis/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
- lovich 8y agoIf companies successfully argue that maximising revenue is a legitimate interest and thus, don't need users consent, then the GPDR will worth less the paper it was written on. I would be extremely surprised if the EU goes through all this tome, effort, and money just to let corporations continue with business as usual
- merb 8y ago> I would be extremely surprised if the EU goes through all this tome, effort, and money just to let corporations continue with business as usual trust me, you didn't see what the eu already gone through, just to keep existing.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoEu cookie law is one prior example of this. That worked out to “business as usual” in the end, didn’t it?
- merinowool 8y ago> I would be extremely surprised if the EU goes through all this tome, effort, and money just to let corporations continue with business as usual I wouldn't. EU is all about bureaucracy and hordes of civil servants doing meaningless jobs. If GDPR becomes fruitless like Cookie Law, then they'll say tough luck, hire more civil servants and start working on another useless law.
- blub 8y agoThere was a lot of lobbying done to water down the GDPR. But on the other hand, corporations are all about unscrupulous behaviour and doing the minimum possible (if that) to claim they respect the law. If the GDPR works, they'll just hire more lobbyists.
- bad_user 8y agoLawyers can say such things and I'm sure that Facebook will try to fight it, but I don't think they'll be able to do so successfully, because the GDPR is very specific about what a "legitimate interest" is. See here for an explanation: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimate-interest/ https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimat... PS: the EU can't wait to give fat fines to companies like Facebook and Google, due to their tax evasion schemes. It's the whole reason for why these companies haven't been able to stop GDPR, with all of their lobbying prowess. And I don't care about such motives, as an EU citizen I'm glad that GDPR exists.
- _bxg1 8y agoAs an American citizen I'm glad that GDPR exists. Our own government will never strongarm Big Tech into respecting their users - especially in this political climate - so I'm glad someone else is.
- mrep 8y agoI think it is naive at best. To me, it's like the EU is a spoiled child who wants everything for free without paying for it. Most of the web is payed for by targeted advertising and getting rid of that would make the web suck as their would be way less money to actually pay for content. Also, non-targeted ads suck as they usually end up being like Viagra ads since they pay the most.
- ericst 8y agoI don't see what is naive. The EU has never said that you can't have ads. You can do ads without using and selling user data. For instance, you can have contextual ads (depending on what you read, not who you are) or just random ads. GDPR is not against the ad business, it is only setting limits and obligations on how you can use personal data. It is saying that it is not normal for businesses to build huge user profiles without oversight or even consideration.
- 8y ago
- dmortin 8y ago> So Facebook's lawyers can say, "It's in our legitimate interest to maximise advertising revenue". They can say it is their interest to have enough revenue to operate the site and some (how much?) profit above that. Maximizing revenue is an other angle. Though if we accept that we live in capitalist society then maximizing profits is one of the core tenets of that.
- jbfoo 8y agoWell, in case of "need enough revenue to operate" they could just add reasonable "no tracking" monthly fee.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoCan they? I was under the impression that GDPR does not allow “accept tracking or else pay money”. If it does then that seems like an easy, obvious solution to the problem. So easy and obvious that the fact no one is implementing it makes me suspect it is not actually compliant.
- ckastner 8y ago"Legitimate interest" works for regular data (Article 8). You cannot claim "legitimate interest" for sensitive data (Article 9), such as political and religious views, or sexual orientation.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoThat’s probably ok though, as I imagine those features are somewhat less important to advertisers.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoYou could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show fewer ads and make the same revenue. I don’t know if regulators will buy it though. I for one am very interested to see how this continental experiment changes the experience of internet users in Europe. And I’m sure glad (at least in this dimension) that I’m not there. (Overall I think I’d be better off living in Europe despite the occasional law I disagree with, but that’s another story.)
- 908087 8y ago> You could probably take it a step further and say that it is in the user’s best interest to see targeted rather than generic advertising, because you can show fewer ads and make the same revenue. I don’t know if regulators will buy it though. It would be hard to argue that when none of these companies are in fact showing "fewer ads" as a result of targeting.
- hshehehjdjdjd 8y agoYou don’t know that, because you don’t know how many ads they would be showing in the alternate reality where they only show non-targeted advertisements.
- 908087 8y agoSo regulators should just take their word for it and allow them to slide on compliance because they claim they would be showing more ads in some alternate reality if it weren't for targeting? That sounds like a loophole that would allow pretty much everyone to ignore GDPR completely, and I think you'd actually have to live in an alternate reality to consider that reasonable. The entire advertising industry would be exempt from GDPR. By that logic, they could fill an entire site with ads, and claim that since those ads are targeted it's still a benefit to users, because if the ads weren't targeted they would have to make the site larger in order to fill it with even more ads. There's no limit to how far you could take that.
- zerostar07 8y agoI don't think they 'll manage to convince anyone that maximum profit can be a legitimate reason - at least not in the current climate. They can claim however that, since facebook's business is selling targeted ads (which is truly their source of revenue), their system simply needs user's data to work. I believe that facebook DID ask about permission with its terms pop-up that i saw on the web. In any case however, any complaint against facebook will be judged emotionally at this time, so the details may matter less.
- jacquesm 8y agoAt the scale at which Facebook operates there are billions at stake and they will litigate these things until the last breath rather than to give up these lucrative revenue streams. Look forward to FB pulling out of Ireland if that's what it comes down to.