3 ms·
> • Facebook identifies a specific natural person. This is the point when the GDPR kicks in, and Facebook would be expected to know that the combination of the
by dane-pgp 5y ago
> • Facebook identifies a specific natural person.
This is the point when the GDPR kicks in, and Facebook would be expected to know that the combination of the data they obtain from A, B, and C is enough to identify someone (even if Facebook never actually combined the data to produce those identities). The fact that Facebook are paying money for the data (in this hypothetical scenario) means they should know the value of the data and what can be done with it.
> one might consider that malicious software, and then you've got the whole book ready to be thrown at your head.
I'd love there to be a case where some company got the book thrown at them for anonymous (or even non-anonymous) telemetry. Did anything happen after the Irish and Dutch investigations into Windows 10 telemetry?
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/windows-10-could-still-be-snooping-on-user-data https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/windows-10-could-still-be-...
- wizzwizz4 5y ago> This is the point when the GDPR kicks in, In the real world, Facebook doesn't trade money, but services, for this data. (Mostly.) And the GDPR applies all the time. Do companies have a “legitimate interest” to give pseudonymised transaction data to Facebook (pseudonymised using Facebook's answer key), in return for “marketing and business insights”, without the consent of those whose data is being traded? I'm pretty sure that doesn't fall under legitimate interest, and there isn't another GDPR reason that might apply.