4 ms·

> If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. Actually, for a lot of it they can't. The GDPR downloads a

> If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. Actually, for a lot of it they can't. The GDPR downloads are incomplete and are missing lots of data like many other GDPR downloads. And in some cases these aren't competing, they just aren't making Facebook money so Facebook denies them access and tells them what they need to do to add Facebook to process so they can get access. And if I can tell Facebook to delete something and they have to do it, they do not own it. Facebook are not in control of the data, they have access to it, but they can't share it without permission, they can't sell it without permission, they can't do alot of things. This, to me, means they do not own the data.

manfredo 8y ago
The requirement to make GDPR downloads available was never well thought out. For instance, say you requested a log of your Facebook chat logs. Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. Especially for a service that is all about networking and sharing, it's difficult to walk the line between giving the user the data they requested, and respecting the privacy of other users. The ability to tell Facebook to delete your data does not grant you ownership of that data. You do not have the right to tell Facebook to let some 3rd party to access it using Facebook's infrastructure (which seemed to be the claim made by the original comment I responded to). The fact that the government forces companies to abide by certain regulations does not mean that the company is not the owner of the things that are regulated. A company might have it's interview records audited to investigate discrimination. Does that mean the company does not actually own or possess these interview records?
- xanipher 8y ago
  >Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. How is it a violation of privacy to tell a user with which other users they have communicated in the past?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Do you want your Facebook usage published because any one of the hundreds (thousands?) of the people you interacted with requested their data under GDPR? It's not just telling the user. Once they info is published said user can turn around and tell it to the rest of the world. Some people have already published their requested data, it seems unlikely that people publishing said data face consequences. Sure, nothing is stopping people from scrolling through chat logs screenshotting them. But that's difficult to do at scale, so there's de-facto limits on how much info can leak this way. Also consider the situation in which you unfriend someone, thus preventing them from seeing past chat logs - I think, I haven't used Facebook in a long time. If that person does a GDPR request should the company deliver data that the user is otherwise prohibited from viewing? If GDPR does mandate this it seems like a legally-mandated side channel attack.
mtgx 8y ago
And the downloads for people outside GDPR's reach (like Americans) are even more incomplete. Facebook continues to play a game of "how much can we mislead them to get our way".

manfredo 8y ago

The requirement to make GDPR downloads available was never well thought out. For instance, say you requested a log of your Facebook chat logs. Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. Especially for a service that is all about networking and sharing, it's difficult to walk the line between giving the user the data they requested, and respecting the privacy of other users. The ability to tell Facebook to delete your data does not grant you ownership of that data. You do not have the right to tell Facebook to let some 3rd party to access it using Facebook's infrastructure (which seemed to be the claim made by the original comment I responded to). The fact that the government forces companies to abide by certain regulations does not mean that the company is not the owner of the things that are regulated. A company might have it's interview records audited to investigate discrimination. Does that mean the company does not actually own or possess these interview records?

xanipher 8y ago
>Should Facebook provide this without redaction of the recipients' identities? I'd say no, providing this data without that redaction is a violation of the recipients' privacy. How is it a violation of privacy to tell a user with which other users they have communicated in the past?
- manfredo 8y ago
  Do you want your Facebook usage published because any one of the hundreds (thousands?) of the people you interacted with requested their data under GDPR? It's not just telling the user. Once they info is published said user can turn around and tell it to the rest of the world. Some people have already published their requested data, it seems unlikely that people publishing said data face consequences. Sure, nothing is stopping people from scrolling through chat logs screenshotting them. But that's difficult to do at scale, so there's de-facto limits on how much info can leak this way. Also consider the situation in which you unfriend someone, thus preventing them from seeing past chat logs - I think, I haven't used Facebook in a long time. If that person does a GDPR request should the company deliver data that the user is otherwise prohibited from viewing? If GDPR does mandate this it seems like a legally-mandated side channel attack.

mtgx 8y ago

And the downloads for people outside GDPR's reach (like Americans) are even more incomplete. Facebook continues to play a game of "how much can we mislead them to get our way".