I recall a discussion on the matter. Everyone that wasn't selling ads felt that if it was impossible to sell ads without tracking due to "click fraud", there was no obligation from society to prop up their failing business model by letting them ignore the privacy rights of the public just because it was expedient to do so.
The business model is fine, the EU and you are choosing to kill it. Not only are people arguing for no tracking they are arguing on forcing other people to live without tracking. So if someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for their personal information they don't even have the choice. Additionally GDPR requires that businesses not restrict their products to only those that are funding it.
Well yeah, that's the meaning of laws/regulation, they apply to everyone. If someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for [something illegal] well sorry but not allowed. That's not the hard part of this whole debate...
Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? That user's have the right to their own data? If they decide they want a free service in exchange for it, they're only 'hurting' themselves after all, and if they really have a right to their data (instead of a right to have their rulers tell them what to do with their data) then they should be able to make that choice! You can't act like everything that's "illegal" is equally bad, by grouping "personal data" with other "[something illegal]" items. That's a pretty severe case of equivocation.
I'm not sure I see that, but I'd be willing to consider that possibility if there was any data to back that up instead of hysterical op-eds and articles. I see a lot of those, but not a lot in the way of convincing evidence.
Although, FB in general doesn't seem to help the political discourse, I don't think it's anyone's job to decide what ways of communication and discussion are right for a democracy, because if you control where people can speak and what they can say, it's a short step until you control how they vote.
Wait what? I cannot say illegal things are illegal? The only association I made is that things that break the law are illegal, which is a tautology and obviously true. I never said everything illegal is the same.
Personal data has many meanings and for some, this data might bring their literal death so of course it's a serious topic. Not common in the last ~30 years of western history, but that's just a tiny slice of time/location so of course it's sensible many of us want to keep personal data, well, personal.
I apologise, I might have misunderstood your point then. I assumed you were saying something more interesting then a simple tautology. Why say a tautology?
I thought what yout were saying is that we shouldn't want it to be legal because it's illegal and therefore bad.
> Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with.
And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.
Forcing companies to tell users what they're doing with their data so the users can have informed choice isn't really my issue here.
The issue I have is the rules in what can be done with that data. Because those rules make it so that the users don't get to decide what they're OK with being done with their data.
If I'm being really honest here, the GDPR seemed pretty well intentioned, IMHO it just went a little far.
Maybe I read a different text than you but I have yet to encounter a scenario in which a user would consent to processing that the law still would not allow. Assuming the consent was gathered according to the basic principles of GDPR, fair, transparent, specific etc.
Maybe I am missing something. Would you provide examples? I would be very glad to learn if there are edge cases I may be overlooking.
The GDPR does not restrict much what you can do with personal data in principle, it does require much more effort in explicitly informing the user (also for updates) and it does grand inalienable right to users on their own data.
Those "inalienable" rights are kind of the issue here: it's telling the businesses and users how they can sell that data and what they can use it for, so it's not a choice by the user on what they do with their data, and more a collective decision with the government.
As for explicitly informing the user about what they do with their data, that part I have no quarrel with.
My point would be that there are a lot of illegal business practices. You as a costumer cannot buy expired food.
> it's telling the businesses and users how they can sell that data and what they can use it for, so it's not a choice by the user on what they do with their data, and more a collective decision with the government.
That is true, and that should happen in cases where market incentives do not align with social or public interests.
I see where your coming from, and it makes sense. Your point of view, if I understand correctly, is that the government should protect consumers from accidentally making bad choices. And I get that. It seems like it would be nice. But I don't think that's a road we want to go down, because if the government gets to make choices for people in one area, why not others? And why are we assuming that the government always knows better than the people that are actually in situations?
I mean, if I'm being honest my views on government aren't very common, so it'll probably be expedient to agree to disagree. (:
I don't think tracking adtech is a fine business model, but I'm inclined to favor technical solutions over legislative ones. There are several reasons, including: technical solutions are available to everyone, not just specific regions; technical solutions evolve and respond quickly to a changing environment; technical solutions offer users more direct control over what they will accept; technical solutions are not coercive or backed by the threat of violence.
I love it how everyone is downvoting you for pointing out something super basic: GDPR is essentially the government deciding that everyone in Europe's data belongs to the government, to decide what they can use it for and what they can't. That's not personal data rights. That's other people deciding what's best for you.
To make a little jump, this is like saying that child labor regulations mean that your children are actually property of the government. (not to show it is wrong, but that there is some background context needed)
Also I can still give facebook all my personal data. Simply facebook need to get my consent to distribute and sell it and I will forever have some basic control on what data fecebook has on me. The government has little to do in this.
Also (beware the strawman), as far as I know people cannot sell their own organs in the EU, is this a sign that your body belong to the state or that business models build on harvesting poor people organs are unjust?
So for your examples, I would say yes, yes through its rules and actions the government has clearly shown that it thinks it owns those things. Including our bodies (drug war anyone?). And a business model that pays for organs is not "unjust" but maybe a bad idea for those that would participate, obviously. I mean, the way you phrase that makes it sound like they're going to be kidnapping poor people in the streets to steal their organs if there wasn't a law against selling organs, which doesn't make sense.
> Also I can still give facebook all my personal data. Simply facebook need to get my consent to distribute and sell it and I will forever have some basic control on what data fecebook has on me. The government has little to do in this.
So long as the government doesn't force companies to provide the basic control, that's how it seems like it should work! (:
> I mean, the way you phrase that makes it sound like they're going to be kidnapping poor people in the streets to steal their organs if there wasn't a law against selling organs, which doesn't make sense.
My understanding is that figuratively speaking that is almost what happened with subprime loans.
Corporations and market can have a lot of power in performing predatory tactics. If drugs were simply legal quite a few business would sustain themselves on other people addictions.
One of the main reason we need regulations is that any sensible and obvious law (like not kidnapping people to harvest their organs) has loopholes (like keeping people poor, ignorant and devoid of mobility (lack of education, criminal convictions etc.)) so that they will agree to sell their organs.
Organ harvesting is a deeply extreme subject and obviously will not happen with or without regulations, but modern free society need are built on the free enterprise (eventually in the public sphere) of individuals and consequently they need to handle when individuals gather too much power and can destabilize societies.
Every free society has this problem (including bitcoin with a 51% attack) and needs to find a solution to both promise rewards for personal enterprise and incentives not to abuse the system (for bitcoin (IIRC) they are respectively money and loss of hardware investment)
> So long as the government doesn't force companies to provide the basic control, that's how it seems like it should work! (:
(interpreting as government should not force companies)
My problem with that is that principles do not help us distinguish fair competition from predatory unethical behavior. In the contest of personal data and privacy that is relevant as we live a completely different universe from just a few years ago.
Gossip is not illegal, but if you were magically able to listen to every conversation in a 10 km radius that would be a problem. Legal and illegal are often linked to how hard it is to do something and the scale at which you can do it.
Which is a fine argument, but people often don't consider that this kills off all the businesses that rely on those adtech companies. I think part of the problem is that it's not immediately obvious that sites like Google and YouTube only run because of that adtech.
They only rely on ads because that's the path of least resistance. If the GDPR eventually means that there is no Google or no Youtube anymore – which is not very likely – that just means the cost of Google/Youtube doesn't justify its benefits, assuming markets work at all.
