4 ms·

They're used to being able to do that because the Irish DPC does fuck all, with full backing of the government (see https://noyb.eu/en/irish-gov-makes-critizisi

They're used to being able to do that because the Irish DPC does fuck all, with full backing of the government (see https://noyb.eu/en/irish-gov-makes-critizising-big-tech-and-irish-dpc-crime https://noyb.eu/en/irish-gov-makes-critizising-big-tech-and-...)

Aachen 3y ago
The article is about proposed secrecy regarding the Irish Data Protection Commission, "Section 26A would make most reporting about procedures or decisions by the DPC a crime." It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal. Data protection authorities in any country that matters are kept underfunded or on an otherwise short leash (Netherlands is no different, we might as well not have one at all for all the positive things it does ... not ... do). Not sure the German one is as bad, but then which big business decided to headquarter in DE? Ireland and the Netherlands have better tax schemes apparently. I'm not surprised they're doing as little as possible in Ireland, but I would be surprised if they actually said it's fine to make one-sided contract amendments
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal. That link was just one of many examples of incompetence, corruption and favoritism by the Irish DPC - here's a more obvious one: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I find that particular one even more sensational and less objective. > the DPC simply ignored the unlawful revenue made by Meta and claimed that "the Commission is unable to ascertain an estimation of the matters" and that it is therefore "unable to take these matters into account". This is despite having the power to demand such information from Meta under Article 58(1) GDPR. > Max [says] "We all know about Meta's enormous revenue. It's astonishing that this was not taken into account by the DPC. Apples and oranges. DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing. Max says "but look at how filthy rich they are! Take it all!!" 10/10 logic The latter logic is what gets these things overturned (I'm no fan of Facebook's and would be perfectly happy to see their services banned from the EU market altogether until they comply with article 8 of our human rights convention, which GDPR helps protect, but I do try to keep an objective perspective)
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      > DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing I would agree that the waters might be murky in a business spanning multiple verticals or offering multiple products. But in case of Facebook, the only business they have is targeted advertising, so it's safe to assume that any EU-sourced revenue is directly as a result of operating unlawfully and breaching the GDPR?
toyg 3y ago
I used to wonder how African countries' governments could be captured so comprehensively by moneyed interests like Big Agro, mining companies, etc. Then tech got to Ireland and things got a bit clearer.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  from what I can tell, everyone thinks people are just wheelbarrowing bundles of cash in corrupt foreign countries while their own country has a convoluted legal process that is therefore different and okay. while in reality a lot of other countries have some form of codified legal process that makes "money to one guy for a favorable regulatory environment" possible too.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
disgruntledphd2 3y ago
Nope, that is incorrect. This was a business decision to buy as much time as possible, and it got them 5 years worth of EMEA revenue without needing consent. Like, everybody knew that this was illegal, but court cases take a long time. Fundamentally, the Irish government and DPC had no way to stop this from happening. The really interesting question is what happens to Google here, as they have traditionally taken the same approach.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  I don't think this is incorrect? The DPA is incompetent or corrupt because it allowed such a scheme to be profitable. > This was a business decision to buy as much time as possible A competent and non-corrupt DPA would've enforced a fine greater than the potential/estimated revenue explicitly to discourage gambles like this and seize any revenue acquired unlawfully.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Huh? Facebook made the business decision, they got sued and the court case has finally concluded that this was (as basically everone already knew) not compliant. The maximum fine is capped at 5% of global revenue, so this was always gonna end up being profitable for Facebook, unfortunately. I personally agree that the Irish DPA should be doing a lot better, but they're definitely not corrupt.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      > they're definitely not corrupt. Mate, every regulator in Ireland is corrupt. Every single one. GSOC - corrupt. Ask Maurice McCabe. Túsla - corrupt. Ask McCabe, again. Central Bank - corrupt. Ask Jonathan Sugarman. Coillte - corrupt. Look at all the sitka spruce drenched in Round-Up that they plant. The CRU - corrupt. Have never handed down a fine over three figures, afaict. They are literally paid by the utility companies. Ask anyone you know who has ever filed a complaint against them. My lawyer wouldn't go near them when his leccy company screwed him over - no point, he said. The construction industry is a mafia; look into CRH sometime. Look at what's happening to RTE now that they were caught giving tens of millions away under the table - one or two people will be scapegoated, lose their job, and escape jailtime. FF and FG have their fingers in every pie. They have the country rotted out from the core. We're in debt over 40,000 euro per person. So why on Earth would you assume the DPC, who has been letting FB run roughshod over half the planet's data for years, are any better at all?

Aachen 3y ago

The article is about proposed secrecy regarding the Irish Data Protection Commission, "Section 26A would make most reporting about procedures or decisions by the DPC a crime." It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal. Data protection authorities in any country that matters are kept underfunded or on an otherwise short leash (Netherlands is no different, we might as well not have one at all for all the positive things it does ... not ... do). Not sure the German one is as bad, but then which big business decided to headquarter in DE? Ireland and the Netherlands have better tax schemes apparently. I'm not surprised they're doing as little as possible in Ireland, but I would be surprised if they actually said it's fine to make one-sided contract amendments

Nextgrid 3y ago
> It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal. That link was just one of many examples of incompetence, corruption and favoritism by the Irish DPC - here's a more obvious one: https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-397-billion-present-meta https://noyb.eu/en/irish-data-protection-authority-gives-eu-...
- Aachen 3y ago
  I find that particular one even more sensational and less objective. > the DPC simply ignored the unlawful revenue made by Meta and claimed that "the Commission is unable to ascertain an estimation of the matters" and that it is therefore "unable to take these matters into account". This is despite having the power to demand such information from Meta under Article 58(1) GDPR. > Max [says] "We all know about Meta's enormous revenue. It's astonishing that this was not taken into account by the DPC. Apples and oranges. DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing. Max says "but look at how filthy rich they are! Take it all!!" 10/10 logic The latter logic is what gets these things overturned (I'm no fan of Facebook's and would be perfectly happy to see their services banned from the EU market altogether until they comply with article 8 of our human rights convention, which GDPR helps protect, but I do try to keep an objective perspective)
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing I would agree that the waters might be murky in a business spanning multiple verticals or offering multiple products. But in case of Facebook, the only business they have is targeted advertising, so it's safe to assume that any EU-sourced revenue is directly as a result of operating unlawfully and breaching the GDPR?

toyg 3y ago

I used to wonder how African countries' governments could be captured so comprehensively by moneyed interests like Big Agro, mining companies, etc. Then tech got to Ireland and things got a bit clearer.

yieldcrv 3y ago
from what I can tell, everyone thinks people are just wheelbarrowing bundles of cash in corrupt foreign countries while their own country has a convoluted legal process that is therefore different and okay. while in reality a lot of other countries have some form of codified legal process that makes "money to one guy for a favorable regulatory environment" possible too.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

disgruntledphd2 3y ago

Nope, that is incorrect. This was a business decision to buy as much time as possible, and it got them 5 years worth of EMEA revenue without needing consent. Like, everybody knew that this was illegal, but court cases take a long time. Fundamentally, the Irish government and DPC had no way to stop this from happening. The really interesting question is what happens to Google here, as they have traditionally taken the same approach.

Nextgrid 3y ago
I don't think this is incorrect? The DPA is incompetent or corrupt because it allowed such a scheme to be profitable. > This was a business decision to buy as much time as possible A competent and non-corrupt DPA would've enforced a fine greater than the potential/estimated revenue explicitly to discourage gambles like this and seize any revenue acquired unlawfully.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Huh? Facebook made the business decision, they got sued and the court case has finally concluded that this was (as basically everone already knew) not compliant. The maximum fine is capped at 5% of global revenue, so this was always gonna end up being profitable for Facebook, unfortunately. I personally agree that the Irish DPA should be doing a lot better, but they're definitely not corrupt.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > they're definitely not corrupt. Mate, every regulator in Ireland is corrupt. Every single one. GSOC - corrupt. Ask Maurice McCabe. Túsla - corrupt. Ask McCabe, again. Central Bank - corrupt. Ask Jonathan Sugarman. Coillte - corrupt. Look at all the sitka spruce drenched in Round-Up that they plant. The CRU - corrupt. Have never handed down a fine over three figures, afaict. They are literally paid by the utility companies. Ask anyone you know who has ever filed a complaint against them. My lawyer wouldn't go near them when his leccy company screwed him over - no point, he said. The construction industry is a mafia; look into CRH sometime. Look at what's happening to RTE now that they were caught giving tens of millions away under the table - one or two people will be scapegoated, lose their job, and escape jailtime. FF and FG have their fingers in every pie. They have the country rotted out from the core. We're in debt over 40,000 euro per person. So why on Earth would you assume the DPC, who has been letting FB run roughshod over half the planet's data for years, are any better at all?