5 ms·

Data protection suggests that it is okay in the first place to collect data, as long as it is going to be protected. But this is a problem. Data shouldn't be co

by WA 7y ago

Data protection suggests that it is okay in the first place to collect data, as long as it is going to be protected. But this is a problem. Data shouldn't be collected in the first place, because you can't probably protect it properly anyways (leaks etc.). He's totally right imho, but to defend the GDPR at least a bit: It does have the concept of "consent" so that data should only be collected if people agree to it being collected. However, I still have my doubts that it works like that in reality for several reasons: - Too many websites place tracking cookies first and then let you disable them - Too many apps use some kind of analytics without any consent - The GDPR has different mechanisms to give companies a "legitimate interest in collecting data". How this is enforced is kind of unclear. - The GDPR issued fines in the past, but what's gone is gone. It maybe helps that companies stop collecting more data in the future after they were caught, but you, as an individual, are still screwed. So, the only way indeed is to stop SOME data collection in the first place and do it yourself. And you certainly can forget cookie banners and all that junk. Only thing that works is: - don't sign up to abusive services - use tracking protection on the web (uBlock Origin) - possibly use something like pi-hole to prevent tracking for all your devices and apps But of course, this doesn't stop data collection where you really have no choice but to agree to something. Edit: Clarification

jakeogh 7y ago
I agree. Power centers need rules on what we can remember and say; it's what they derive their protection and power from. Personal responsibility is the last thing they want people to have.
roblabla 7y ago
A technical solution is good, but it only protects the tech savvy. The GDPR gives us several additional guarantees compared to the technical solution: - It protects everyone equally. - It shifts the incentives towards not collecting, since the data becomes a liability. - It empowers citizen to know what was collected through the use of GDPR requests. It further allows the citizen to know what that data was used for. - It allows citizens to ask the collecting entity to remove any and all data they have about them. - Finally, it allows legal recourse when data that was never supposed to get collected inevitably leaks. So there are multiple things the GDPR does that a purely technical solution does not provide. As usual, the best protection is to have both. Used ublock, didn’t give consent, but still suspect foul play? Send the company a GDPR request, and if data was collected, ask for it to be deleted (and additionally report it to your gdpr regulation entity). Also: > - Too many websites place tracking cookies first and then let you disable them. > > - Too many apps use some kind of analytics without any consent I’m pretty sure both of those are straight up illegal, thanks to the cookie law and the GDPR.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Is there a EU FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF GDPR request? Love those cookie warnings. We need more popups like that. Imagine all the quality time spent clicking, knowing, for sure, that you are getting a cookie.
bad_user 7y ago
> - Too many websites place tracking cookies first and then let you disable them Under GDPR, unless the website owner can prove a legitimate interest (which is pretty hard to do and doesn't work for advertising), this is illegal. > - Too many apps use some kind of analytics without any consent Unfortunately usage analytics can qualify as a legitimate interest, but the actual data used and the purpose matters and you might be able to drop a tracking cookie for improving your service, but AFAIK collecting health data, GPS location or other sensitive information won't fly for analytics without explicit consent. And we are talking about first party analytics only. Having analytics cookies dropped as part of an advertising network without consent will not fly either. > - The GDPR has different mechanisms to give companies a "legitimate interest in collecting data". How this is enforced is kind of unclear. Not sure what you mean by "enforced", but there are rules for establishing a legitimate interest and just because companies claim they have it, doesn't mean that they actually do. It's basically up to the data protection authorities to do their jobs. Give them some time, there are a lot of lawsuits already.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> It does have the concept of "consent" so that data should only be collected if people agree to it being collected. How does this work in practice? Sites just say "we collect data, click OK to accept". Where's the option to say no?
- the_other 7y ago
  The [back] button.
  - WA 7y ago
    The back button is too late. You already gave them a visit, a cookie might have been placed and your IP address was provided.
- WA 7y ago
  That is an excellent question, because this is indeed how it works on many sites. However, it is actually wrong. The proper way would be to have users opt-in. This was even reinforced with a court decision recently: https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2019/10/cookies-tracking-online-behavioral-advertising/compliant-use-of-cookies-in-the-eu-is-still-a-secret-recipe-ecj-decides-on-planet49-but-does-not-provide-clarity/ https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2019/10/cookies-tracki...
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > "we collect data, click OK to accept That's not compliant with the GDPR plain and simple. For example ads on a website are not required for that site to work (even if it's the only revenue), so the site cannot store data only to track users to show ads. The way a complliant site should work is it can say "if you want to allow tracking cookies to get more relevant ads you can do so in settings". I.e. no must be default in case of non-acceptance - and the site must still function.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    Yeah. I just visited some news site and they gave me a cookie notice: > We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. > You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. Hopefully they will be fined huge amounts of money.
ahje 7y ago
The idea is that the fines as supposed to act as a deterrent, but unfortunately there's been a shitload of really bad practices stemming from the fact that many consultants have drawn the erroneous conclusion that pre-ticked opt-in boxes are legal. Fines were handed out regarding a few specific cases, but very few businesses know about this and most of the ones that do claim it doesn't concern them for whatever reason. Furthermore, the Danish authorities set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to take on Google with the sole reason that Google are to big and that someone else have to do it. But yes, until the situation has stabilized and someone has gotten very badly hurt from a financial perspective, the only sensible thing is to block non-HTML content by default and only whitelist the stuff you actually want to run.
redprince 7y ago
> Data protection suggests that it is okay in the first place to collect data, as long as it is going to be protected. But this is a problem. Data shouldn't be collected in the first place, because you can't probably protect it properly anyways (leaks etc.). Article 5 of GDPR specifically deals with the reduction of what's collected and the destruction of data after it has served its purpose. The legislators were well aware that what isn't there cannot be lost, stolen or misused. Not collecting personal data in the first place is always the preferred scenario.
dwild 7y ago
> Data shouldn't be collected in the first place, because you can't probably protect it properly anyways (leaks etc.). That's an absurd argument, any data can be leaked. Your bank data can be leaked, mine was, should bank be banned to hold any personal data for that reason?
- WA 7y ago
  Of course. But not every service needs the same amount of personal data like a bank account. Just think of all the apps that want access to your contacts, often for no particular reason. Obviously, if fewer services collect data, the overall chance of lots of data being leaked goes down.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Of course. But not every service needs the same amount of personal data like a bank account. Just think of all the apps that want access to your contacts, often for no particular reason. I'm not arguing whether data can be collected with wrong intends. I'm arguing that the fact that it can be leaked isn't an argument in itself because everything can be leaked.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    The person you’re replying to was quoting you saying no data collection should be done. Now you’re saying banks have to collect data and saying other things. So you do agree data does have to be collected at some level?
    - WA 7y ago
      Yes I do agree. But not on the scale it is collected right now. Please also note that I basically repeated what Snowden said in the video.

by WA 7y ago

jakeogh 7y ago

I agree. Power centers need rules on what we can remember and say; it's what they derive their protection and power from. Personal responsibility is the last thing they want people to have.

roblabla 7y ago

A technical solution is good, but it only protects the tech savvy. The GDPR gives us several additional guarantees compared to the technical solution: - It protects everyone equally. - It shifts the incentives towards not collecting, since the data becomes a liability. - It empowers citizen to know what was collected through the use of GDPR requests. It further allows the citizen to know what that data was used for. - It allows citizens to ask the collecting entity to remove any and all data they have about them. - Finally, it allows legal recourse when data that was never supposed to get collected inevitably leaks. So there are multiple things the GDPR does that a purely technical solution does not provide. As usual, the best protection is to have both. Used ublock, didn’t give consent, but still suspect foul play? Send the company a GDPR request, and if data was collected, ask for it to be deleted (and additionally report it to your gdpr regulation entity). Also: > - Too many websites place tracking cookies first and then let you disable them. > > - Too many apps use some kind of analytics without any consent I’m pretty sure both of those are straight up illegal, thanks to the cookie law and the GDPR.

jakeogh 7y ago
Is there a EU FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF GDPR request? Love those cookie warnings. We need more popups like that. Imagine all the quality time spent clicking, knowing, for sure, that you are getting a cookie.

bad_user 7y ago

> - Too many websites place tracking cookies first and then let you disable them Under GDPR, unless the website owner can prove a legitimate interest (which is pretty hard to do and doesn't work for advertising), this is illegal. > - Too many apps use some kind of analytics without any consent Unfortunately usage analytics can qualify as a legitimate interest, but the actual data used and the purpose matters and you might be able to drop a tracking cookie for improving your service, but AFAIK collecting health data, GPS location or other sensitive information won't fly for analytics without explicit consent. And we are talking about first party analytics only. Having analytics cookies dropped as part of an advertising network without consent will not fly either. > - The GDPR has different mechanisms to give companies a "legitimate interest in collecting data". How this is enforced is kind of unclear. Not sure what you mean by "enforced", but there are rules for establishing a legitimate interest and just because companies claim they have it, doesn't mean that they actually do. It's basically up to the data protection authorities to do their jobs. Give them some time, there are a lot of lawsuits already.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

> It does have the concept of "consent" so that data should only be collected if people agree to it being collected. How does this work in practice? Sites just say "we collect data, click OK to accept". Where's the option to say no?

the_other 7y ago
The [back] button.
- WA 7y ago
  The back button is too late. You already gave them a visit, a cookie might have been placed and your IP address was provided.
WA 7y ago
That is an excellent question, because this is indeed how it works on many sites. However, it is actually wrong. The proper way would be to have users opt-in. This was even reinforced with a court decision recently: https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2019/10/cookies-tracking-online-behavioral-advertising/compliant-use-of-cookies-in-the-eu-is-still-a-secret-recipe-ecj-decides-on-planet49-but-does-not-provide-clarity/ https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2019/10/cookies-tracki...
alkonaut 7y ago
> "we collect data, click OK to accept That's not compliant with the GDPR plain and simple. For example ads on a website are not required for that site to work (even if it's the only revenue), so the site cannot store data only to track users to show ads. The way a complliant site should work is it can say "if you want to allow tracking cookies to get more relevant ads you can do so in settings". I.e. no must be default in case of non-acceptance - and the site must still function.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  Yeah. I just visited some news site and they gave me a cookie notice: > We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. > You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. Hopefully they will be fined huge amounts of money.

ahje 7y ago

The idea is that the fines as supposed to act as a deterrent, but unfortunately there's been a shitload of really bad practices stemming from the fact that many consultants have drawn the erroneous conclusion that pre-ticked opt-in boxes are legal. Fines were handed out regarding a few specific cases, but very few businesses know about this and most of the ones that do claim it doesn't concern them for whatever reason. Furthermore, the Danish authorities set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to take on Google with the sole reason that Google are to big and that someone else have to do it. But yes, until the situation has stabilized and someone has gotten very badly hurt from a financial perspective, the only sensible thing is to block non-HTML content by default and only whitelist the stuff you actually want to run.

redprince 7y ago

> Data protection suggests that it is okay in the first place to collect data, as long as it is going to be protected. But this is a problem. Data shouldn't be collected in the first place, because you can't probably protect it properly anyways (leaks etc.). Article 5 of GDPR specifically deals with the reduction of what's collected and the destruction of data after it has served its purpose. The legislators were well aware that what isn't there cannot be lost, stolen or misused. Not collecting personal data in the first place is always the preferred scenario.

dwild 7y ago

> Data shouldn't be collected in the first place, because you can't probably protect it properly anyways (leaks etc.). That's an absurd argument, any data can be leaked. Your bank data can be leaked, mine was, should bank be banned to hold any personal data for that reason?

WA 7y ago
Of course. But not every service needs the same amount of personal data like a bank account. Just think of all the apps that want access to your contacts, often for no particular reason. Obviously, if fewer services collect data, the overall chance of lots of data being leaked goes down.
- dwild 7y ago
  > Of course. But not every service needs the same amount of personal data like a bank account. Just think of all the apps that want access to your contacts, often for no particular reason. I'm not arguing whether data can be collected with wrong intends. I'm arguing that the fact that it can be leaked isn't an argument in itself because everything can be leaked.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  The person you’re replying to was quoting you saying no data collection should be done. Now you’re saying banks have to collect data and saying other things. So you do agree data does have to be collected at some level?
  - WA 7y ago
    Yes I do agree. But not on the scale it is collected right now. Please also note that I basically repeated what Snowden said in the video.