10 ms·
GDPR: noyb.eu filed four complaints against Google, FB, Whatsapp, Instagram
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoWhat is the process between this complaint and a fine / order to rectify?
- tombone12 8y agoThe national agencies evaluates the complain and take a decision, which I hope will happen before the end of the year. Exactly how it happens depends on the country, as the GDPR leaves room for national legislation also on the section on the Supervisory authority.
- spullara 8y agoGDPR could end free internet services. Maybe it is the outcome that the EU desires, I'm not sure, but I don't see how you can run non-transactional, free services without monetizing them via the best possible advertising. Do they want everyone to go back to punch-the-monkey and mortgage ads exclusively?
- _red 8y agoChinese websites are exempt. What does that tell you?
- spullara 8y agoI can't find a reliable reference for this. Can you point me to something official about it?
- anonymousab 8y agoI was able to find an Alex Jones / Infowars video about it, but I'm unable to watch to see if it's just infotainment bluster, or based off of something more concrete that the parent poster could be referring to.
- dazc 8y agoMaybe because the EU has no jurisdiction or influence over China?
- dingaling 8y agoThey certainly have both over Alibaba and JD.com which have European offices. And that's just two off the top of my head.
- whatshisface 8y agoFree services existed before megatracking. Advertisements will go back to being targeted contextually, which will raise the value of views on "Tom's Train Fan Web Hub (and camera reviews)" at the expense of "Zuckerberg's Universal Website for Everyone." Look at Duck Duck Go for an example of advertising that is contextualized only with the current page, as opposed to the entirety of your personal history.
- setquk 8y agoI welcome the old days. Everything has been heading in the direction of data grabbing and market share focused turf wars between big tech companies all trying to establish the most profitable monopoly.
- TAForObvReasons 8y agoThe best part is: by revealing the true "cost" of the free services and slowly starting to curb their behaviors, high-quality paid services and content are becoming more palatable and viable.
- zerostar07 8y agoYou can’t say that until you see the price. Facebook would cost $20 per year per person. It s up to the users to decide if thats a good price
- setquk 8y agoI wouldn't pay that to be offended by my relatives.
- TomMarius 8y agoI don't remember anyone running services with offerings similar to e.g. Gmail back then without income from targeted advertising. Back then, my mailbox had 10 MB capacity while Gmail offered 1 GB thanks to the money from advertising.
- anonymousab 8y agoI don't think it's a foregone conclusion that advertising needs to be based around tracking your every move to make the best or most effective ads. Domain relevance is still one viable path in some cases. The rise of adblocking and the ongoing arms race from that would prompt innovation and change eventually. I don't think we need to underestimate the advertising industry's ability to route and innovate around regulation and irritated consumers.
- jlarocco 8y agoThat's not a bad thing. The general public has never wanted web companies to spy on them, and tech companies have been taking advantage of people's ignorance. Everybody in the ad world knows it, too, and that's why so many companies are freaking out. They'll never get permission from people to spy on them like they have been. They whined about the "Do not track" header in the same way - they want to hide what they're doing as much as possible. If asking "customers" to opt-in in to your business model is going to hurt your business, it was a shitty business model in the first place.
- zerostar07 8y agoUnlikely. Most people are going through be clickinc yes. The ones that wouldn’t are already using ad blockers. Gdpr launch has created a privacy hysteria but that will go away.
- dgudkov 8y ago>GDPR could end free internet services. They are not free. Someone pays for them. If someone wants to pay for an internet service by giving advertisers access to their PII -- that's fine. But it doesn't mean that this monetization scheme should be applied to anyone using the service. Internet companies should provide a paid, tracking-free, and GDPR-compliant access mode, as an alternative to a free ad-based one. Who knows, maybe brick & mortar companies would also accept this double-monetization model, so that when you come to Starbucks next time you would be able to get a free coffee in exchange for your PII and a non-removable tracking bracelet.
- frockington 8y agoFortunately the EU has other things to worry about at the moment so GDPR hysteria should die down quick
- thedevil 8y agoFor the proponents of GDPR, do you think that these are good ideas? edit: Why? What's the argument for them? > The GDPR prohibits such forced consent and any form of bundling a service with the requirement to consent > a penalty of 4% of global revenue edit: On the first, if companies use (for example) personalized ads to pay for the service, why should they be forced to provide the service without the source of funding? If you disagree with that, you can just not use the service.
- Tomte 8y agoThe first is an excellent idea. The second... I don‘t care whether it‘s 3, 4 or 5 percent. But the big idea is „global“ and „revenue“, which again is excellent.
- anonymousab 8y agoWhen taken with the main goal being compliance, not money extraction, yeah. It remains to be seen if that ideal is upheld, and what kind of creative workarounds and ideals companies will try to explore. As with any regulation or law, it has potential to be overbearing, favor incumbents and/or end up doing the opposite of its initial intentions. That's the nature of anything society tries to do, though. If it doesn't work right, change it later.
- sbov 8y agoNot all business models are legal. If the companies don't want to abide by the rules of the EU, they can opt not provide services to people in the EU.
- Tomte 8y agoFurthermore, they can adjust their business. The GDPR does not outlaw ads. It only makes using the worst types of ads difficult or maybe even impossible. And that‘s unequivocally good!
- thedevil 8y agoI prefer some targeted ads. I'd like to be able to opt in or out. Why do you think that what I want from Google should not be allowed if it's a win for me, Google, and advertisers?
- forcer 8y agocan someone explain how would this make consent popups go away? I think consent popups are here to stay, what this lawsuit may change is what buttons will be on them
- anonymousab 8y agoSince things have to be opt-in, in theory you could ignore or block all such popups and benefit from the default of not having given consent. In practice, companies will continue to assume the opposite, and we'll see how things shake out with the regulators and courts. It's the cornerstone behind any teeth in the GDPR. Exciting times.
- GW150914 8y agoI think The Atlantic’s version is a great example, with a bunch of opt-in options clearly laid out. In the end the rest will probably end up looking more or less like that, or go down in much-deserved flames.
- riantogo 8y agoSo what exactly is the overall outcome that people (in the support camp) are expecting from GDPR? Obviously targeted content and advertising is not going to stop. But maybe the 0.01% of the population that wants to opt-out of targeting or download their data can (BTW most of this was already possible with most big players)? And they want this at the cost of much higher cost of compliance for hobbyists and startups? And what does all this mean in terms of net gain to society?
- zerostar07 8y agoA few extra billions in fines
- riantogo 8y agoThat is correct. They should have just gone the route of taxing more for that revenue.
- solarkraft 8y agoNo, because the fines encourage good behavior to avoid them.
- Tomte 8y agoI hope that your „obviously“ isn‘t quite so obvious and it does stop. I concede that chances are low, but I contend they are non-zero.
- riantogo 8y agoI politely disagree. The law is clear that it can go on with user consent as long as there is provision for deletion and download. Which means it is going to be business as usual (with a lot of inconvenience to comply).
- icebraining 8y agoBut why would most users consent?
- xtrapolate 8y agoWhat happens when a GDPR claim is dismissed by a court? Are the plaintiffs required to compensate the defendants? Can Facebook/Google counter-sue for damages? What's stopping anyone from randomly filing GDPR claims against every other website? How many such claims can the system handle at any given time before succumbing to years-long queues?
- Tomte 8y agoMax Schrems/NOYB is not really a "plaintiff". They have started no legal proceedings. They just wrote a letter to the data protection agencies that – in their opinion – someons is doind something wrong. Facebook/Google et al. have no quarrel with Max Schrems, but with the data protection agency, if it decides to act on this. Therefore it's obvious that Max Schrems cannot be liable for anything.
- oldcynic 8y agoThere's no court case here yet. In these 4 cases they have been reported to the regulator. For 3 of them the reports will be passed to the regulator in Eire as that's where they have an EU presence. So if it is "dismissed" that essentially means the regulator decides no action is required. Or the regulator might decide a phone call or letter will suffice for a first offence. Max Schrems could take a case to court against Facebook or whoever, with all the usual costs, penalties and potential for appeals etc.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- makomk 8y agoThe odd thing is that lots of companies are abusing forced consent, but Google isn't one of them from what I've seen. Instead it's mostly publications like the Washington Post, Forbes, and Fortune just to name the last three I encountered this on. Google seems quite happy to let you refuse to let them use your personal information for ad targetting or any kind of personalisation of results and continue using their services, whereas a lot of publications just plain won't let you view their site unless you agree to this.
- Sylos 8y agoBecause Google needs the reputation. And if publications like Washington Post, Forbes, Fortune do it on behalf of Google, because ultimately what they deploy is Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Ads and so forth, then that's a double win for Google.
- he0001 8y agoWhat about github? What happens if someone that have been a contributor to several projects and then says to github that they have to remove the data that is in those repositories. However they just cannot go in and erase history in companies repos?
- KozmoNau7 8y agoCode is not personal data. All they need to clean up is the contributer's name and contact information.
- he0001 8y agoBut that still requires to rewrite history in the repos [0]. What if the commits are signed etc. [0] https://www.git-tower.com/learn/git/faq/change-author-name-email https://www.git-tower.com/learn/git/faq/change-author-name-e...