6 ms·

The Norwegian Data Protection Authority imposed a fine of €6,500,000 on Grindr for not collecting users' valid consent for sharing data with third parties for p

by j_san 5y ago

The Norwegian Data Protection Authority imposed a fine of €6,500,000 on Grindr for not collecting users' valid consent for sharing data with third parties for profiling and advertising purposes from the Grindr App. Particularly interesting is that it is not allowed under GDPR to have a free version of an app with the condition that it shares personal data (in this case for targeting and profiling for ads) as the consent of the user is not freely given in this case - in a "Take it or leave it" situation, consent cannot be seen as freely given. Link to the section "Consent as a condition to access the service ": https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Datatilsynet_(Norway)_-_20/02136-18#Consent_as_a_condition_to_access_the_service https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Datatilsynet_(Norway)_-_2...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KarlKemp 5y ago
I was about to mention how well-written Norwegian legal texts are until I noticed the “edit” links. So, instead, I’ll say this is a well-written wiki article.
oytis 5y ago
Interesting indeed, it is what several German online newspapers do - they let you choose between a free version with tracking and a paid one without one. I find this argument a bit weird though: > Sharing Grindr's users personal data with advertising partners for online behavioural advertising purposes was not necessary for the performance of the Grindr's services. Charging money for your services is also not necessary for the performance of the said services. Still businesses are luckily still allowed to charge money. Why can't data be considered as a means of payment in this case?
- arlcode 5y ago
  Because society decided that it shouldn't be. It's a political decision that charging money (or displaying not personalized ads) is preferably.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    This hurts most people with less money to pay, as they can’t access the service otherwise.
    - sippeangelo 5y ago
      It exploits most people with less money to pay, as they're not privileged enough to access the service otherwise.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        So offering people with no means to pay another way to access the service (in exchange of something quite worthless to them, their "data") is now exploitation?
    - akie 5y ago
      The GDPR has a provision that requires that the same level of access to the service has to be provided regardless of your privacy/tracking choice.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        And my observation points out the logical effects of that provision.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Interesting, because said practice from German news sites seems to have the blessing of the data privacy authorities. Sadly I can't find the source. It must have been one of the data privacy newsletters I receive. So the Norge argument here would go further and I would like to see this challenged to the European Court as this would provide a final verdict. Currently I feel that different countries see these things quite a bit different. On the other hand it would only mean that you can't have a free version refinanced through advertising, but would need to find other ways of converting users into paying customers while still providing a striped down free app for generating reach.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Why can't organs be considered as a means of payment? Not sarcasm - I think that while it's obviously a different scale, the reasons are similar and boil down to "we don't want that as a society" and "the environment this creates is not conductive to a free and informed rational decision". Many people don't understand the value of their data and the risk it poses, there is an information imbalance, there is a power imbalance (the company sets the terms, and you only get to take it or leave it). The pre-GDPR situation also showed that the market doesn't really work, because everyone was collecting your data, people have limited energy and incentive to care because it doesn't cause immediately visible pain. It's similar to workplace safety - we don't allow employers to create easily avoidable dangerous situation in exchange for extra pay either, for similar reasons. Most importantly, data grabbing is not necessary for advertising, it's just slightly more profitable and thus everyone does it, eventually pushing the "good" (privacy-friendly) players out of the market. If we want to change that, we need a de-facto ban (which a properly implemented GDPR would be, because so many people will click "No" if given a truly free choice that showing the popup won't be worth it).
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Are you implying that my online data is as important to me as an actual organ?! Because it certainly doesn’t feel that way.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      No, and I explicitly stated "while it's obviously a different scale".
      - nickpp 5y ago
        So, since you brought human organs in a discussion about data, what are you comparing it to then, on its scale? A toenail? An eyelash? Some dead skin? What is of such great importance and I can’t be allowed to exchange it at any price and I can’t be trusted to make this decision myself?
    - jsjsbdkj 5y ago
- belorn 5y ago
  > Why can't data be considered as a means of payment in this case? One of the biggest reason would be that using data as payment has demonstrated to push out companies that don't want to collect data. Data as a mean of payment is less clear to the consumer about the costs, and there is no real good way to inform the public outside of an massive investment into the general education that focus on privacy, data laws, how data is gathered, why it is gathered, how it get traded and used, and what the outcomes are. The value added through data is also not taxed which creates an unfair advantage compared to other payment methods.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    It’s quite amazing that something most people see quite worthless ("my data") is suddenly seen by the society as priceless (since I can’t buy it with money).
- cjfd 5y ago
  The 'data is payment' thing sounds terrible. What if it really goes south and this data is involved in some identity theft? Then the criminal justice system needs to get involved at enormous cost to tax payers. Therefore, there actually is an interest of the state that all this data should not be roaming around freely.
arlcode 5y ago
It communicates that European societies (through their elected representatives) disapprove of the "paid for with your data" business model. Yes this is limiting the free market but it's a conscious decision. It's still allowed to process data for your own analytics (e.g. to improve your offer) and make use of third party services. What the GDPR aims to prevent is your data being shared with the whole world way beyond the entity with which you originally interacted. If that means services cannot finance themselves through advertising anymore then so be it.
mabedan 5y ago
I wasn't aware of the rule against "Take it or leave it". Just yesterday I encountered a similar situation, visiting a popular German website (Heise online). Screenshot of the "consent as a condition to access the service" https://imgur.com/a/neJya1e https://imgur.com/a/neJya1e

by j_san 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KarlKemp 5y ago

I was about to mention how well-written Norwegian legal texts are until I noticed the “edit” links. So, instead, I’ll say this is a well-written wiki article.

oytis 5y ago

Interesting indeed, it is what several German online newspapers do - they let you choose between a free version with tracking and a paid one without one. I find this argument a bit weird though: > Sharing Grindr's users personal data with advertising partners for online behavioural advertising purposes was not necessary for the performance of the Grindr's services. Charging money for your services is also not necessary for the performance of the said services. Still businesses are luckily still allowed to charge money. Why can't data be considered as a means of payment in this case?

arlcode 5y ago
Because society decided that it shouldn't be. It's a political decision that charging money (or displaying not personalized ads) is preferably.
- nickpp 5y ago
  This hurts most people with less money to pay, as they can’t access the service otherwise.
  - sippeangelo 5y ago
    It exploits most people with less money to pay, as they're not privileged enough to access the service otherwise.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      So offering people with no means to pay another way to access the service (in exchange of something quite worthless to them, their "data") is now exploitation?
  - akie 5y ago
    The GDPR has a provision that requires that the same level of access to the service has to be provided regardless of your privacy/tracking choice.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      And my observation points out the logical effects of that provision.
sdoering 5y ago
Interesting, because said practice from German news sites seems to have the blessing of the data privacy authorities. Sadly I can't find the source. It must have been one of the data privacy newsletters I receive. So the Norge argument here would go further and I would like to see this challenged to the European Court as this would provide a final verdict. Currently I feel that different countries see these things quite a bit different. On the other hand it would only mean that you can't have a free version refinanced through advertising, but would need to find other ways of converting users into paying customers while still providing a striped down free app for generating reach.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Why can't organs be considered as a means of payment? Not sarcasm - I think that while it's obviously a different scale, the reasons are similar and boil down to "we don't want that as a society" and "the environment this creates is not conductive to a free and informed rational decision". Many people don't understand the value of their data and the risk it poses, there is an information imbalance, there is a power imbalance (the company sets the terms, and you only get to take it or leave it). The pre-GDPR situation also showed that the market doesn't really work, because everyone was collecting your data, people have limited energy and incentive to care because it doesn't cause immediately visible pain. It's similar to workplace safety - we don't allow employers to create easily avoidable dangerous situation in exchange for extra pay either, for similar reasons. Most importantly, data grabbing is not necessary for advertising, it's just slightly more profitable and thus everyone does it, eventually pushing the "good" (privacy-friendly) players out of the market. If we want to change that, we need a de-facto ban (which a properly implemented GDPR would be, because so many people will click "No" if given a truly free choice that showing the popup won't be worth it).
- nickpp 5y ago
  Are you implying that my online data is as important to me as an actual organ?! Because it certainly doesn’t feel that way.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    No, and I explicitly stated "while it's obviously a different scale".
    - nickpp 5y ago
      So, since you brought human organs in a discussion about data, what are you comparing it to then, on its scale? A toenail? An eyelash? Some dead skin? What is of such great importance and I can’t be allowed to exchange it at any price and I can’t be trusted to make this decision myself?
  - jsjsbdkj 5y ago
belorn 5y ago
> Why can't data be considered as a means of payment in this case? One of the biggest reason would be that using data as payment has demonstrated to push out companies that don't want to collect data. Data as a mean of payment is less clear to the consumer about the costs, and there is no real good way to inform the public outside of an massive investment into the general education that focus on privacy, data laws, how data is gathered, why it is gathered, how it get traded and used, and what the outcomes are. The value added through data is also not taxed which creates an unfair advantage compared to other payment methods.
- nickpp 5y ago
  It’s quite amazing that something most people see quite worthless ("my data") is suddenly seen by the society as priceless (since I can’t buy it with money).
cjfd 5y ago
The 'data is payment' thing sounds terrible. What if it really goes south and this data is involved in some identity theft? Then the criminal justice system needs to get involved at enormous cost to tax payers. Therefore, there actually is an interest of the state that all this data should not be roaming around freely.

arlcode 5y ago

It communicates that European societies (through their elected representatives) disapprove of the "paid for with your data" business model. Yes this is limiting the free market but it's a conscious decision. It's still allowed to process data for your own analytics (e.g. to improve your offer) and make use of third party services. What the GDPR aims to prevent is your data being shared with the whole world way beyond the entity with which you originally interacted. If that means services cannot finance themselves through advertising anymore then so be it.

mabedan 5y ago

I wasn't aware of the rule against "Take it or leave it". Just yesterday I encountered a similar situation, visiting a popular German website (Heise online). Screenshot of the "consent as a condition to access the service" https://imgur.com/a/neJya1e https://imgur.com/a/neJya1e