5 ms·

> To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language abo

by Macha 4y ago

> To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language about how consent can be gathered and what it means. The "vague and general language": Article 7, paragraph 4: > When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ Recital 42: > Where processing is based on the data subject’s consent, the controller should be able to demonstrate that the data subject has given consent to the processing operation. 2In particular in the context of a written declaration on another matter, safeguards should ensure that the data subject is aware of the fact that and the extent to which consent is given. 3In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC¹ a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms. 4For consent to be informed, the data subject should be aware at least of the identity of the controller and the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended. 5Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-42/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-42/ Facebook didn't like the business impact of complying so has spent years grasping at loopholes that don't exist in a law which is remarkably clear for legalese (especially EU legalese). The fault for that lies with Facebook, not the law making process.

Zak 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, a GDPR implementation specialist, or even a GDPR enthusiast and I knew this. Specifically, my understanding has always been that a company cannot demand consent to data storage and processing in exchange for providing a service except where the data is actually necessary to provide the service. It certainly isn't necessary to track what users do on other websites in order to provide Facebook's core product. It isn't even necessary to do that to provide ads targeted to a Facebook user's interests because people who use Facebook normally provide significant information about their interests through normal use of Facebook. There is no way that Facebook wasn't aware courts were likely to understand the law that way.

by Macha 4y ago

Zak 4y ago

I am not a lawyer, a GDPR implementation specialist, or even a GDPR enthusiast and I knew this. Specifically, my understanding has always been that a company cannot demand consent to data storage and processing in exchange for providing a service except where the data is actually necessary to provide the service. It certainly isn't necessary to track what users do on other websites in order to provide Facebook's core product. It isn't even necessary to do that to provide ads targeted to a Facebook user's interests because people who use Facebook normally provide significant information about their interests through normal use of Facebook. There is no way that Facebook wasn't aware courts were likely to understand the law that way.