6 ms·

Max Schrems wins privacy case against Meta over data on sexual orientation

144 points by c420 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Do these rulings assign damages or fines?
- buzer 2y ago
  As far as I understand CJEU does not, at least not on this type of case where their opinion regarding EU law is asked by national court. Damages & fines are left to national courts, in this case Austria's Supreme Court (who might send it back to lower courts, I do not have any specific knowledge of Austria's court system).
sofixa 2y ago
Max Schrems is an international treasure. > Meta said it was awaiting publication of the court’s full judgment and that it “takes privacy very seriously.” I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. I'm getting second hand embarrassment from them. Imagine being caught in such a blatant and egregious privacy violation and having to gall to make such a claim.
- hyggetrold 2y ago
  > I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. Did you see that Social Dilemma documentary? People only find their conscience after they've checked a big bankroll. I've been in tech for almost two decades now and I've seen many many many good people throw their values right out the window once the price was right.
  - paul7986 2y ago
    If you're a startup founder with high morality you could never go against you are going to have trouble succeeding!
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If you're a startup founder with high morality…you are going to have trouble succeeding This reminds of people who claim they’re too honest to disguise that they’re assholes. You can absolutely start a company and make lots of money without compromising your values. Someone claiming otherwise is usually trying to excuse bad behaviour or get over a past failure.
      - hyggetrold 2y ago
        > You can absolutely start a company and make lots of money without compromising your values. Here's the thing though, and I say this from personal experience...if you're willing to compromise your values...you can make a shitload of money.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you're willing to compromise your values...you can make a shitload of money Of course. But then you’re also playing a different game, one where the downsides are expanded from make no money to go to jail or worse.
        paul7986 2y ago
        Go to jail ... so many startup bro(s) have lied, cheated, stole and possibly worse to get to where they are and they didnt care. Same with many politicians on the left and right should be locked up for doing worse but arent and wont. Pardon to get political just saying the uber successful that most lack the same morality regular folks do. That was a downfall in my startup adventures my morality and being a nice guy!
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        This reminds me of the popular view of insider trading. Numpties think everyone does it. So they do. And then they get caught. Because executing an insider trade ex ante versus detecting it ex post facto is an P != NP problem.
- diggan 2y ago
  Meta/Facebook kind of have a track record of strong claims that doesn't really hold up when scrutinized. From https://www.llama.com/ https://www.llama.com/ > The open-source AI model [...] Llama is the leading open source model family Then from https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B > License: Use of Llama 3.2 is governed by the Llama 3.2 Community License (a custom, commercial license agreement). In that license: Section 1(b)(i) requires you to display "Built with Llama" (branding requirements, really?). Section 2 has additional restrictive licensing requirements. Section 5(c) has retaliation that your license is terminated if you initiate legal proceedings. There is probably more too. Pretty close to "Not Open Source". Yet, Meta continue marketing Llama as such.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    yes and, it is essential that Meta is doing this with LLama at this time.. it is literally at their whim. so, complicated...
  - gopher_space 2y ago
    It feels safe to ignore licenses on models trained with copyrighted material. Meta should feel free to open that can of worms if they’re bothered by it.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    There is no way that legal proceedings clause could hold up.
- scotty79 2y ago
  They are taking privacy, very seriously.
  - imron 2y ago
    Beautifully placed comma
- CommieBobDole 2y ago
  That's just basic PR-speak; it's apparently important to release a statement saying "we are and have always been very serious about not doing (thing that we do and got caught doing)" after you've been caught doing a thing. I think the idea is there's some percentage of the public that will just uncritically accept the last thing they were told as gospel truth, and the rest don't believe you any less than they did before, so it's a net win.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    To note, they're not talking about not screwing X. All they're saying is they take X very seriously. Which can be interpreted positively by some, yet doesn't put them too much at risk when tomorrow they're found again screwing X. They'll still be taking X very seriously at that time.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      Exactly, it's often weasel-wording that loosely suggests they're seriously against something, but state they are just generically serious regarding a topic in an abstract manner. "The police officers killed my dog! Right through the screen door!" "Please calm down sir, I assure you the the department takes the handling of pets very seriously..."
  - nprateem 2y ago
    And of course that you welcome the judgment against you and look forward to blah blah blah
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    I just mentally translate any PR statement like that as "fuck you we'll keep doing what we're doing, enjoy your portion of the paltry fine we pay once you receive it after a decade of appeals."
- Alupis 2y ago
  The article is short on details. Schrems alleges that Facebook somehow picked up his sexual orientation from a panel meeting, and then advertised to him based on that? Is it not more likely that the group of people/profiles and activities he participated on Facebook are what "outed" him instead? I had hoped for more details about how Schrems and/or a court were able to prove Facebook took his off-site meeting into account and based ads on that alone.
- stavros 2y ago
  Yes he is, please donate yearly to https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  Meta does take privacy seriously. It is an existential threat to their "business". Meta is serious about violating privacy for profit.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. We have created a dystopian system where honesty is punished and lying is incentivized. This is the only natural outcome anyone should expect.
suprjami 2y ago
2024: When asking companies to comply with the law is being an "activist".
- macintux 2y ago
  Taking a company to court is definitely in the realm of activism.
  - elric 2y ago
    Demanding that your basic rights be respected by billion-dollar scale ad-peddlers doesn't sound like activism to me.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      It's doing something, therefore it's activism.
      - amelius 2y ago
        Did you look up the definition?
        wizzwizz4 2y ago
        Never in my life before now, but Wiktionary agrees with me. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=activism&oldid=82027054 https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=activism&oldid=8... > The practice of using action to achieve a result, such as political demonstration or a strike in support of or in opposition to an issue. If you're doing something about it, that can be called activism.
        amelius 2y ago
        The "such as" part of that definition is very important. Without it, you'd have only "The practice of using action to achieve a result", which applies to anything, e.g. me pressing "submit" (an action) to achieve the result that my comment is posted. I don't think the "such as" clause covers lawsuits.
AStonesThrow 2y ago
The court decision pertains only to targeting advertising to the same user. They didn't say that the data can't be collected. They didn't say the data can't be processed at all. They didn't say that the data can't be "aggregated and analysed" for some purpose other than "to offer him personalised advertising". Meta does indeed offer controls to disable personalised and targeted advertising. If Schrems had disabled these settings appropriately, would Schrems have learned what Meta knew? It would seem that the targeting and personalisation is often the only way a user will find out what social media knows about us. So IMHO, this is a sad, sad day for your privacy and Schrem's privacy, because if Meta can't reveal what they know about us through advertising and targeting, then Meta does indeed take Meta's privacy very seriously.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Article 9 of the GDPR says: Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. There is a list of exceptions, but I'm not sure any of them apply. I don't really see how what the court says matters all that much. They can't overturn the law.
welcome_dragon 2y ago
Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? I think of the story where Target was pushing diaper ads on someone before her dad (maybe even her?) knew she was pregnant
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Sure, Schrems' claims seem to hinge on the fact that the only evidence of direct self-identification by Schrems is that one instance of a verbal claim on a panel discussion. (That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way: it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests...) But if advertising works on a recommendation engine basis, or groups similar tastes together, then if someone uses the Meta platform enough, there will be circumstancial evidence that this person's interests and activities coincide with other gay people. Perhaps the merit of the case rested with Schrems barely using Meta/FB, not providing any direct data or engagement, and only to discover that advertising was targeted. Of course, Meta is a vast platform, including comments sections and widgets and third-party cookies across many websites. But Meta takes Meta's privacy very seriously, so perhaps nobody but the court will ever see what Meta and their partners learned about Schrems, or how they learned it.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    > Perhaps the merit of the case rested with If only the AP had gone web-first instead of staying legacy, we'd all probably be able to just follow a link to the actual case information instead of having to guess.
  - froh 2y ago
    > it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests. nit: did you mean conduct (which connotes moral principles) or did you mean plain behaviour (which doesn't lump what you do together with if it's "right" or "wrong", according to some but maybe not some other rulebook)
    - AStonesThrow 2y ago
jfengel 2y ago
Huh. I would have expected the company to go with "we didn't say gay and we didn't use external information. We just noticed that users who like X page buy a lot of copies of Playgirl so we hooked you up". Sounds like he managed to prove more in his case than is apparent from the article.
- contravariant 2y ago
  Privacy legislation has always been a bit iffy about the distinction between data and information. Depending on how this ruling treats that issue it could have knock-on effects. Basically the issue here is that meta was almost certainly in possession of information on Max's sexual orientation and was using this information for advertising, but it's unclear if they had any data. Privacy wise it is great that even partial information counts, but practically almost any data about a person is tainted with fractions of bits of information about their sexual orientation (or political views, or almost any of the protected classes of information). Without resorting to information theory I don't really see any way forward that doesn't end up in endless court cases over how much information is too much. Then again we could just ban targeted advertising and avoid the whole issue in the first place. When differential privacy gets to a usable state we can worry about those instances where it would be nice to use some information for the public good without infringing privacy.
- jmd42 2y ago
  I don't think he even needed to prove that. Rather it's that, in the course of evaluating this case, the court has been forced to make statements clarifying how certain rules and principles in GDPR are to be interpreted. And this has, in effect, narrowed the way Meta etc can use data. Which for Schrems is really his ultimate goal anyway - his case is just a way to force the courts to rule / establish legal precedent on broader issues.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 2y ago
> Schrems had complained that Facebook had processed personal data including information about his sexual orientation to target him with online advertising, even though he had never disclosed on his account that he was gay. The only time he had publicly revealed this fact was during a panel discussion. But processed what personal data? Where would Facebook even get reliable data on users' sexual orientation in bulk? It's not like you can buy that the way you can get credit scores or geographic locations. (Or can you? I've never heard of it.) I'm very curious for the actual details here. And just because you get ads for products that seem to be marketed to the gay population, what leads the court to determine FB "identified" him as gay? My YouTube regularly has random ads in Spanish probably just because of some bug. Most ads seem to mistarget me, in fact.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  I'd guess that it's inferred from the content you interact with. If you spend a lot of time liking fireman calendar photoshoots and give no likes to women in swimsuits, there's a reasonable inference to be made. I'd also guess that Facebook can do this pretty reliably for gender and age, martial status, parental status, and lots of other things.
  - kgeist 2y ago
    What if the underlying algorithm simply matches "users who like X also like Y" without having concepts like sexual orientation baked in. And it just happened that it accidentally suggested certain things gay people generally like, because Max Schrems liked that "X" once.
    - bastawhiz 2y ago
      But that's not how Facebook sells ads. It would be one thing to recommend more content like what you've engaged with already. It's another thing to let advertisers check boxes that let them say "sell my product to gay men between the ages of 25 and 35" and to satisfy that without ever having the user tell you their orientation or age. Facebook deliberately crunches the numbers and produces a clear signal from them that advertisers can filter on.
TheMagicHorsey 2y ago
How did Facebook determine that Schrems was gay? Do they even know he's gay? Just because they showed him an ad for something that gay people would find relevant doesn't mean they targeted him for being gay. Its possible he likes a lot of stuff gay people like. I get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, even though I'm an atheist. But say I was a Christian, should I then deduce that Facebook knew I was Christian and used that information? They are just spraying and praying with their ads on best guesses as to what is relevant to you. How is this a lawsuit?
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  You get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, because you're an atheist. I fixed that quote for you, because advertising is often targeted to the opposite demographic for various reasons. Just try enjoying your favorite show on radio or regular TV, and you'll perceive ads for stuff you would never touch, but they are paying good $$$ to support that show you like, and to get in front of everyone possible, and perhaps wear you down with brand recognition and exciting jingles to influence your buying decisions in a moment of weakness. However, targeted advertising may know exactly what you like, and be an effective means of call-to-action and conversion to sales. On the back end, Meta advertisers fill out a list of audience interests and demographics. So yes, if the advertisements and their buyers were documented, Meta should also have sales info on the intended audiences.
- jmd42 2y ago
  It's a lawsuit because Schrems only needs enough of a basis to force the courts to consider certain issues, and to make statements about how GDPR should apply in principle in certain situations, in order to effectively restrict big tech's use of data. It's a case brought strategically in order to trigger certain questions of interpretation of GDPR rules to be litigated. Schrems' specific claim only needs to hold enough water to give him standing to get the case through enough filters in the court system to facilitate this.
- pembrook 2y ago
  Facebook didn’t determine he was gay, it’s just spray-and-pray by the algorithm exactly like you said. He’s just bringing the court case in bad faith to raise the issue and create another foothold for the EU to extract further billions in fines. The outcome will be more laws so nobody creates anything new in the consumer space or takes any risks that aren’t sanctioned by EU central planners ever again. Knocking over US big tech companies for fines is literally the fastest growing EU industry by total profits.
spencerchubb 2y ago
This is a weird thing to be upset about. As a gay person, I don't want to see ads that are meant for straight people. I would rather see ads relevant to me.
- mr90210 2y ago
  Here is a provocative thought experiment that might help you get the point: Replace the word gay with bone cancer, which just so happened that you’ve been diagnosed with. Would you feel comfortable with Meta inferring that from your activity and flood you with ads related to cancer?
  - spencerchubb 2y ago
    I wouldn't care. I might even be glad if one of those ads informed me of a lifesaving cure.
    - froh 2y ago
      now live in a country that punishes you for being gay. and have someone incidentally glance over your shoulder with them gay ads in your stream. do you see the danger these ads put you in?
      - PUSH_AX 2y ago
        Wow, you’ve really moulded this into something different.
        Nevermark 2y ago
        Yes. Trying to convince someone to change their opinion can easily get out of hand. Its trying to do too much. Helping people understand other people's opinions is a better stance. I.e. The person in the article finds being surveilled by a company, outside of their relationship with the company, and having that information available for advertisers to manipulate them for money disturbing, immoral and offensive. Especially for very personal attributes. And many other people do too. And the European Union. -- At some point I hope there is a wave of non-ad social media. Imagine how few resources are required to run an online scrapbook? When you don't need to have thousands of servers collating every scrap of information about you they can get, and applying ever more sophisticated AI to optimally insert "sticky" posts, reinforce your notification checking habit, finding the minimum number of organic friends & family posts they need to give you, and matching you to advertisers and ads. Applied psychology is 99% of social media's expenses. 99% of the rest is legal and lobby.
sub7 2y ago
I logged into Twitter after years and it was clear the ad algo was trying to determine my sexual preference - it would start by throwing in a hot girl, if I ignored then the image became a hot girl in bikini, then a hot girl's butt etc etc. Eventually it just showed me a fully nude girl with her legs open. In the middle, it threw in tweets about homo topics with images of dudes kissing. These were always 1 tweet, below the fold, and once a day. Eventually I just clicked one of the hot girls and I've never got anything since.

144 points by c420 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Do these rulings assign damages or fines?

buzer 2y ago
As far as I understand CJEU does not, at least not on this type of case where their opinion regarding EU law is asked by national court. Damages & fines are left to national courts, in this case Austria's Supreme Court (who might send it back to lower courts, I do not have any specific knowledge of Austria's court system).

sofixa 2y ago

Max Schrems is an international treasure. > Meta said it was awaiting publication of the court’s full judgment and that it “takes privacy very seriously.” I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. I'm getting second hand embarrassment from them. Imagine being caught in such a blatant and egregious privacy violation and having to gall to make such a claim.

hyggetrold 2y ago
> I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. Did you see that Social Dilemma documentary? People only find their conscience after they've checked a big bankroll. I've been in tech for almost two decades now and I've seen many many many good people throw their values right out the window once the price was right.
- paul7986 2y ago
  If you're a startup founder with high morality you could never go against you are going to have trouble succeeding!
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If you're a startup founder with high morality…you are going to have trouble succeeding This reminds of people who claim they’re too honest to disguise that they’re assholes. You can absolutely start a company and make lots of money without compromising your values. Someone claiming otherwise is usually trying to excuse bad behaviour or get over a past failure.
    - hyggetrold 2y ago
      > You can absolutely start a company and make lots of money without compromising your values. Here's the thing though, and I say this from personal experience...if you're willing to compromise your values...you can make a shitload of money.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you're willing to compromise your values...you can make a shitload of money Of course. But then you’re also playing a different game, one where the downsides are expanded from make no money to go to jail or worse.
        paul7986 2y ago
        Go to jail ... so many startup bro(s) have lied, cheated, stole and possibly worse to get to where they are and they didnt care. Same with many politicians on the left and right should be locked up for doing worse but arent and wont. Pardon to get political just saying the uber successful that most lack the same morality regular folks do. That was a downfall in my startup adventures my morality and being a nice guy!
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        This reminds me of the popular view of insider trading. Numpties think everyone does it. So they do. And then they get caught. Because executing an insider trade ex ante versus detecting it ex post facto is an P != NP problem.
diggan 2y ago
Meta/Facebook kind of have a track record of strong claims that doesn't really hold up when scrutinized. From https://www.llama.com/ https://www.llama.com/ > The open-source AI model [...] Llama is the leading open source model family Then from https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B > License: Use of Llama 3.2 is governed by the Llama 3.2 Community License (a custom, commercial license agreement). In that license: Section 1(b)(i) requires you to display "Built with Llama" (branding requirements, really?). Section 2 has additional restrictive licensing requirements. Section 5(c) has retaliation that your license is terminated if you initiate legal proceedings. There is probably more too. Pretty close to "Not Open Source". Yet, Meta continue marketing Llama as such.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  yes and, it is essential that Meta is doing this with LLama at this time.. it is literally at their whim. so, complicated...
- gopher_space 2y ago
  It feels safe to ignore licenses on models trained with copyrighted material. Meta should feel free to open that can of worms if they’re bothered by it.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  There is no way that legal proceedings clause could hold up.
scotty79 2y ago
They are taking privacy, very seriously.
- imron 2y ago
  Beautifully placed comma
CommieBobDole 2y ago
That's just basic PR-speak; it's apparently important to release a statement saying "we are and have always been very serious about not doing (thing that we do and got caught doing)" after you've been caught doing a thing. I think the idea is there's some percentage of the public that will just uncritically accept the last thing they were told as gospel truth, and the rest don't believe you any less than they did before, so it's a net win.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  To note, they're not talking about not screwing X. All they're saying is they take X very seriously. Which can be interpreted positively by some, yet doesn't put them too much at risk when tomorrow they're found again screwing X. They'll still be taking X very seriously at that time.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Exactly, it's often weasel-wording that loosely suggests they're seriously against something, but state they are just generically serious regarding a topic in an abstract manner. "The police officers killed my dog! Right through the screen door!" "Please calm down sir, I assure you the the department takes the handling of pets very seriously..."
- nprateem 2y ago
  And of course that you welcome the judgment against you and look forward to blah blah blah
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  I just mentally translate any PR statement like that as "fuck you we'll keep doing what we're doing, enjoy your portion of the paltry fine we pay once you receive it after a decade of appeals."
Alupis 2y ago
The article is short on details. Schrems alleges that Facebook somehow picked up his sexual orientation from a panel meeting, and then advertised to him based on that? Is it not more likely that the group of people/profiles and activities he participated on Facebook are what "outed" him instead? I had hoped for more details about how Schrems and/or a court were able to prove Facebook took his off-site meeting into account and based ads on that alone.
stavros 2y ago
Yes he is, please donate yearly to https://noyb.eu/ https://noyb.eu/.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Meta does take privacy seriously. It is an existential threat to their "business". Meta is serious about violating privacy for profit.
kibwen 2y ago
> I wonder how Meta employees can keep a straight face lying their faces off. We have created a dystopian system where honesty is punished and lying is incentivized. This is the only natural outcome anyone should expect.

suprjami 2y ago

2024: When asking companies to comply with the law is being an "activist".

macintux 2y ago
Taking a company to court is definitely in the realm of activism.
- elric 2y ago
  Demanding that your basic rights be respected by billion-dollar scale ad-peddlers doesn't sound like activism to me.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    It's doing something, therefore it's activism.
    - amelius 2y ago
      Did you look up the definition?
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        Never in my life before now, but Wiktionary agrees with me. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=activism&oldid=82027054 https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=activism&oldid=8... > The practice of using action to achieve a result, such as political demonstration or a strike in support of or in opposition to an issue. If you're doing something about it, that can be called activism.
        amelius 2y ago
        The "such as" part of that definition is very important. Without it, you'd have only "The practice of using action to achieve a result", which applies to anything, e.g. me pressing "submit" (an action) to achieve the result that my comment is posted. I don't think the "such as" clause covers lawsuits.

AStonesThrow 2y ago

The court decision pertains only to targeting advertising to the same user. They didn't say that the data can't be collected. They didn't say the data can't be processed at all. They didn't say that the data can't be "aggregated and analysed" for some purpose other than "to offer him personalised advertising". Meta does indeed offer controls to disable personalised and targeted advertising. If Schrems had disabled these settings appropriately, would Schrems have learned what Meta knew? It would seem that the targeting and personalisation is often the only way a user will find out what social media knows about us. So IMHO, this is a sad, sad day for your privacy and Schrem's privacy, because if Meta can't reveal what they know about us through advertising and targeting, then Meta does indeed take Meta's privacy very seriously.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Article 9 of the GDPR says: Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. There is a list of exceptions, but I'm not sure any of them apply. I don't really see how what the court says matters all that much. They can't overturn the law.

welcome_dragon 2y ago

Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? I think of the story where Target was pushing diaper ads on someone before her dad (maybe even her?) knew she was pregnant

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Sure, Schrems' claims seem to hinge on the fact that the only evidence of direct self-identification by Schrems is that one instance of a verbal claim on a panel discussion. (That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way: it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests...) But if advertising works on a recommendation engine basis, or groups similar tastes together, then if someone uses the Meta platform enough, there will be circumstancial evidence that this person's interests and activities coincide with other gay people. Perhaps the merit of the case rested with Schrems barely using Meta/FB, not providing any direct data or engagement, and only to discover that advertising was targeted. Of course, Meta is a vast platform, including comments sections and widgets and third-party cookies across many websites. But Meta takes Meta's privacy very seriously, so perhaps nobody but the court will ever see what Meta and their partners learned about Schrems, or how they learned it.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > Perhaps the merit of the case rested with If only the AP had gone web-first instead of staying legacy, we'd all probably be able to just follow a link to the actual case information instead of having to guess.
- froh 2y ago
  > it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests. nit: did you mean conduct (which connotes moral principles) or did you mean plain behaviour (which doesn't lump what you do together with if it's "right" or "wrong", according to some but maybe not some other rulebook)
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago

jfengel 2y ago

Huh. I would have expected the company to go with "we didn't say gay and we didn't use external information. We just noticed that users who like X page buy a lot of copies of Playgirl so we hooked you up". Sounds like he managed to prove more in his case than is apparent from the article.

contravariant 2y ago
Privacy legislation has always been a bit iffy about the distinction between data and information. Depending on how this ruling treats that issue it could have knock-on effects. Basically the issue here is that meta was almost certainly in possession of information on Max's sexual orientation and was using this information for advertising, but it's unclear if they had any data. Privacy wise it is great that even partial information counts, but practically almost any data about a person is tainted with fractions of bits of information about their sexual orientation (or political views, or almost any of the protected classes of information). Without resorting to information theory I don't really see any way forward that doesn't end up in endless court cases over how much information is too much. Then again we could just ban targeted advertising and avoid the whole issue in the first place. When differential privacy gets to a usable state we can worry about those instances where it would be nice to use some information for the public good without infringing privacy.
jmd42 2y ago
I don't think he even needed to prove that. Rather it's that, in the course of evaluating this case, the court has been forced to make statements clarifying how certain rules and principles in GDPR are to be interpreted. And this has, in effect, narrowed the way Meta etc can use data. Which for Schrems is really his ultimate goal anyway - his case is just a way to force the courts to rule / establish legal precedent on broader issues.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 2y ago

> Schrems had complained that Facebook had processed personal data including information about his sexual orientation to target him with online advertising, even though he had never disclosed on his account that he was gay. The only time he had publicly revealed this fact was during a panel discussion. But processed what personal data? Where would Facebook even get reliable data on users' sexual orientation in bulk? It's not like you can buy that the way you can get credit scores or geographic locations. (Or can you? I've never heard of it.) I'm very curious for the actual details here. And just because you get ads for products that seem to be marketed to the gay population, what leads the court to determine FB "identified" him as gay? My YouTube regularly has random ads in Spanish probably just because of some bug. Most ads seem to mistarget me, in fact.

bastawhiz 2y ago
I'd guess that it's inferred from the content you interact with. If you spend a lot of time liking fireman calendar photoshoots and give no likes to women in swimsuits, there's a reasonable inference to be made. I'd also guess that Facebook can do this pretty reliably for gender and age, martial status, parental status, and lots of other things.
- kgeist 2y ago
  What if the underlying algorithm simply matches "users who like X also like Y" without having concepts like sexual orientation baked in. And it just happened that it accidentally suggested certain things gay people generally like, because Max Schrems liked that "X" once.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    But that's not how Facebook sells ads. It would be one thing to recommend more content like what you've engaged with already. It's another thing to let advertisers check boxes that let them say "sell my product to gay men between the ages of 25 and 35" and to satisfy that without ever having the user tell you their orientation or age. Facebook deliberately crunches the numbers and produces a clear signal from them that advertisers can filter on.

TheMagicHorsey 2y ago

How did Facebook determine that Schrems was gay? Do they even know he's gay? Just because they showed him an ad for something that gay people would find relevant doesn't mean they targeted him for being gay. Its possible he likes a lot of stuff gay people like. I get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, even though I'm an atheist. But say I was a Christian, should I then deduce that Facebook knew I was Christian and used that information? They are just spraying and praying with their ads on best guesses as to what is relevant to you. How is this a lawsuit?

AStonesThrow 2y ago
You get targeted by advertisements for institutions offering degrees in Christian studies or some such thing, because you're an atheist. I fixed that quote for you, because advertising is often targeted to the opposite demographic for various reasons. Just try enjoying your favorite show on radio or regular TV, and you'll perceive ads for stuff you would never touch, but they are paying good $$$ to support that show you like, and to get in front of everyone possible, and perhaps wear you down with brand recognition and exciting jingles to influence your buying decisions in a moment of weakness. However, targeted advertising may know exactly what you like, and be an effective means of call-to-action and conversion to sales. On the back end, Meta advertisers fill out a list of audience interests and demographics. So yes, if the advertisements and their buyers were documented, Meta should also have sales info on the intended audiences.
jmd42 2y ago
It's a lawsuit because Schrems only needs enough of a basis to force the courts to consider certain issues, and to make statements about how GDPR should apply in principle in certain situations, in order to effectively restrict big tech's use of data. It's a case brought strategically in order to trigger certain questions of interpretation of GDPR rules to be litigated. Schrems' specific claim only needs to hold enough water to give him standing to get the case through enough filters in the court system to facilitate this.
pembrook 2y ago
Facebook didn’t determine he was gay, it’s just spray-and-pray by the algorithm exactly like you said. He’s just bringing the court case in bad faith to raise the issue and create another foothold for the EU to extract further billions in fines. The outcome will be more laws so nobody creates anything new in the consumer space or takes any risks that aren’t sanctioned by EU central planners ever again. Knocking over US big tech companies for fines is literally the fastest growing EU industry by total profits.

spencerchubb 2y ago

This is a weird thing to be upset about. As a gay person, I don't want to see ads that are meant for straight people. I would rather see ads relevant to me.

mr90210 2y ago
Here is a provocative thought experiment that might help you get the point: Replace the word gay with bone cancer, which just so happened that you’ve been diagnosed with. Would you feel comfortable with Meta inferring that from your activity and flood you with ads related to cancer?
- spencerchubb 2y ago
  I wouldn't care. I might even be glad if one of those ads informed me of a lifesaving cure.
  - froh 2y ago
    now live in a country that punishes you for being gay. and have someone incidentally glance over your shoulder with them gay ads in your stream. do you see the danger these ads put you in?
    - PUSH_AX 2y ago
      Wow, you’ve really moulded this into something different.
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        Yes. Trying to convince someone to change their opinion can easily get out of hand. Its trying to do too much. Helping people understand other people's opinions is a better stance. I.e. The person in the article finds being surveilled by a company, outside of their relationship with the company, and having that information available for advertisers to manipulate them for money disturbing, immoral and offensive. Especially for very personal attributes. And many other people do too. And the European Union. -- At some point I hope there is a wave of non-ad social media. Imagine how few resources are required to run an online scrapbook? When you don't need to have thousands of servers collating every scrap of information about you they can get, and applying ever more sophisticated AI to optimally insert "sticky" posts, reinforce your notification checking habit, finding the minimum number of organic friends & family posts they need to give you, and matching you to advertisers and ads. Applied psychology is 99% of social media's expenses. 99% of the rest is legal and lobby.

sub7 2y ago

I logged into Twitter after years and it was clear the ad algo was trying to determine my sexual preference - it would start by throwing in a hot girl, if I ignored then the image became a hot girl in bikini, then a hot girl's butt etc etc. Eventually it just showed me a fully nude girl with her legs open. In the middle, it threw in tweets about homo topics with images of dudes kissing. These were always 1 tweet, below the fold, and once a day. Eventually I just clicked one of the hot girls and I've never got anything since.