The GDPR is now in effect. This is an attempt (mostly good) to give people control over their personal data. Specifically, companies must ask you to opt-in to data collection, and you have the right to opt-out at any time.
Of course, too many companies are trying to abuse the situation. For example, I received several notices with an "accept" option that would opt-in to more ads, newsletters or data collection than I had before. I was particularly annoyed by the new Sonos privacy policy. It states that not opting-in to their full data collection means that your Sonos products will no longer work. Which, of course, makes no sense at all - there's no reason why a loudspeaker needs to send my music listening habits to the mothership.
This is an example of a practice called "forced consent", and is explicitly forbidden by the GDPR. Max Schrems, an Austrian attorney and privacy expert, has gone to war on exactly this kind of abuse. Just minutes after the GDPR came into effect, he filed separate complaints against Google, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp - all of which have similar forced-consent policies: opt-in or you cannot use their products.
Schrem's efforts are funded through noyb.eu (none of your business), which is a crowdfunded platform and organization that works for privacy rights online.
Related Stories
The CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) issued its judgment on the Schrems II case, formally called Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (Case C-311/1). The gist is that US companies are now put back to an average status, same as most others, with no special access to EU data due to operating in the US. It will take a while before the decision is published at the government site. Max himself has also issued his first statement on the CJEU judgment, notably that the European Commission bowed to US pressure and that now reform of US surveillance is unavoidable:
US Surveillance reform is unavoidable - CJEU just says it out loud
The Court was clear that the far-reaching US surveillance laws are in conflict with EU fundamental rights. The US limits most protections to "US persons", but does not protect the data of foreign customers of US companies from the NSA. As there is no way of finding out if you or your business are under surveillance, people also have no option to go to the courts. The CJEU found that this violates the 'essence' of certain EU fundamental rights.
Schrems: "The Court clarified for a second time now that there is a clash between EU privacy law and US surveillance law. As the EU will not change its fundamental rights to please the NSA, the only way to overcome this clash is for the US to introduce solid privacy rights for all people – including foreigners. Surveillance reform thereby becomes crucial for the business interests of Silicon Valley."
Ireland's Data Protection commissioner has ordered Facebook not to send any more personal data from Europe to the US. The regulator has the authority to fine Facebook up to 4% of its global turnover, should non-compliance be an issue.
The order, described to Independent.ie by people close to the situation as "well progressed", is the result of a European Court decision in July, which struck down the transatlantic 'Privacy Shield' treaty.
It means that the validity of 'standard contractual clauses' (SCCs) used by thousands of Irish and European companies to transfer data, is now closer to being cancelled.
However, the process is only about half over. The order is only preliminary, so far, and Facebook is doing what it can to appeal or subvert the ruling. The NYOB post links to three letters which provide background on the matter between Data Protection Commission and Facebook.
Previously:
(2020) CJEU Issues Judgment on Schrems II Case
(2018) Privacy Expert Schrems Files GDPR Complaints Against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp
(2018) ICANN's Pre-Emptive Attack on the GDPR Thrown out by German Court
(2018) Facebook is Trying to Block Schrems II Privacy Referral to EU Top Court
(2015) EU Top Court Rules Safe Harbour Treaty Invalid
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:35PM (21 children)
It gratifies me a lot to see people standing up for this and saying "enough"!
I am so fed up with all the corporate arrogance myself that I avoid if at all possible dealing with them... but it does little good if everyone else runs to them with open wallets, credit cards in hand, ready to surrender, agree to anything, for trifles?
These people are fishermen. They offer worms. In exchange for YOU! And you take the bait? You just as dumm as a fish.
Hell, I do not even have a Google account - over terms and conditions about having my credit card number with them. What would have happened to their business model if enough people thought like me and simply refused to "I agree".
I do not have facebook either. Its a lack of trust thing. When they present me with all the businesstalk, I get the strong idea they have to legally tell me how they intend to do me in so I can't sue 'em for doing it. And if that list is too long for me to read, I give up.
I have foregone a lot of stuff, or found workarounds, to avoid getting all snared up in their little games. I would go through all the trouble of building my own Myth TV box only because the really nice elegant little DVR's sold by business would not record in standard .MP4 format. Nor will I tolerate those "home security solutions" that require a cloud, when I can do it in an Arduino, and program it to send me emails and texts if anything goes amiss - and keep my stuff to myself.
How many of us were carefully schooled in how to prissy ourselves up if we wanted to present ourselves to a potential employer in the best possible light? And why do businessmen treat US like this.... doesn't business see that them doing this is almost like a job applicant extending a hand soiled in fecal matter for a job acceptance handshake?
Business would not accept it for one microsecond if we did business the way they do business. Come to them with contracts and agreements that we may or may not do what we were hired to do: I will work up to eight hours a day for only $85,000 per year* ( *plus applicable taxes, fees, and per-diem rates. Subject to change for any reason. Hiring authority agrees to a $500,000 cancellation fee should employee be terminated before 24 months. ). What businessman would touch such a prospective hire tendering such a thing?
I guess we would extend filthy hands too if business would accept that. But they won't. And we do. We get what we will accept.
We all need to see this for what it is and quit tolerating it. When they tender that windbag contract, it should go over like a bout of diarrhea in the business meeting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Apparition on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:55PM (17 children)
I've brought this up time and time again, and the answer is always one of two, (usually both):
The battle is lost, and has been lost for about ten years now.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:02PM (8 children)
The battle is never lost. You have no obligation to agree to anything. You do have a mind of your own. Don't you think your own thoughts?
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:14PM
your brain implant needs to restart to finish installing updates
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:48PM (5 children)
But the flock of sheeple is soooooo large!
Individual, lone wolves like us are few and far between and it's difficult to convince sheep that the farmer DOES mean them harm.
@Apparition is talking of changing the mass mindset, not his own.
I've experienced the same responses they have:
When I compare their "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about" stuff to 1939-ish Nazi Germany telling the Jews they have to register with the police, I get that "man, you're nuts" look (I'm sure many Jews said the same thing: "if you've done nothing wrong...". But it is comparable...they can just track your whereabouts easier now. Today's governments are heading in a BAD direction.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:58PM (3 children)
The real problem with being a lone wolf is that it makes you stand out from the crowd, and you get even more scrutiny.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday June 24 2018, @05:28PM
Unless the wolf is dressed as a sheep.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:12PM
Possibly, but that's not necessarily enough reason not to be one. You may feel strongly enough to want to make a stand on moral grounds against these abuses, for better or worse.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:23PM
I'd rather be a lone wolf and smart enough to, say, 'Get the hell out of Germany' then a sheep that ends up served with mint at Auschwitz.
I'm glad I dumped Windows long ago. Only used Facebook for a few days before realising it was shite.
DUMP shit before it becomes 'difficult' or dump it when it's a pain, but dump it before it becomes the final solution.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:03PM
As Facundo Cabral (a philosopher disguised as a musician) put it: “My uncle, the colonel, said he was only afraid of fools, because they make such a large front that it is impossible to cover it.”
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday June 25 2018, @01:58AM
And the thing is, you soon realize that THEY are the only ones who have something to lose.
They soon come around and say, well, ok you can keep your adblocker on, but you will only
get X articles per month, or Ok, we will stop sending you spam, but not block you at our website,
or yes, we will still process your orders even if you don't agree to all of our terms.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:28PM (4 children)
Well, I do have things to hide... like who I do business with... because I know good and well information like that will be used to ensnare both me and my business partner in misunderstandings over who got paid while the perp runs off with the loot.
Example... right now, should I get a letter in the mail from AT&T, no matter how urgent the letter is marked, I know I do not have to heed it. I do not do any business with them. Its only something to try to buy their package, when they have already demonstrated to me all I will get from them is hot air, and yet more offers.
If I get email from someone I do business with, I will read it, and will try to work with them... and if the information gets out who I do business with, I may well be phished, and the perp profits handsomely by misdirecting payments.
I don't want the days I leave the house to be public knowledge either, given how many homeless are rummaging through my neighborhood these days.
Nor do I want my banking credentials public.
Am I trying to hide anything? Yes!!!! For nefarious purposes? No... I need this privacy for my own protection!
If my Government forces me to reveal all my cards like this, are they prepared to protect me from all those others which will gladly use that info to defraud me? How will they do this? Instantiate Sharia Law? Somebody phishes me and *they* hunt him down and cut off his hands so he can't use a keyboard anymore? Keep 'em all penned up in feeding centers with tubing running into their mouths and out of their ass because they can no longer care for themselves?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:33PM
*Institute
These days you don't even need to be in the same country as the person you want to defraud.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @03:54PM (2 children)
I argued Google around and around. Remember when they wanted everyone to prove who they were? I got a warning that my account would be suspended and/or deleted because I wasn't using a "real identity". I was asked repeatedly to verify my identity. As I recall, this all started soon after G+ kicked off. I think that was the particular program for which they demanded verified identities.
I finally told them that I'm a mature man, and that in my lifetime I have created enemies. I wasn't willing to publicize my real identity, because one evening, I would come home to be greeted by an executioner.
That last argument put a stop to their demands, and my account was never suspended.
In reality, I fear a hitman as much as I fear one of my own dogs attacking me - possible, but so unlikely, I can't waste time considering it. I haven't made THAT KIND of enemies, lol! (or, have I?)
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:06PM
Easy, publish your real address and find out!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 25 2018, @02:02AM
I never told them anything.
I simply ignored Google+.
I never had any arguments with them at all.
THEY are the only ones who have anything to lose here. Certainly not me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @03:42PM
There is also, "we have to give up some freedoms to protect teh children!". Although that is some seriously WTF thinking right there.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:47PM
"The battle is lost, and has been lost for about ten years now."
And it's entirely thanks to people like you who have just given up. Well done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @04:49PM
#2 is the big one for me (also, you couldn't delete your account, but that appears to have changed recently). I have no other way of remotely contacting some friends than facebook (the ones who have no phone service or change their number every other week or who have jealous boyfriends) and that keeps me connected. I've got plenty to hide, but I'm not enough of an idiot to say what I don't want heard or paranoid enough to suspect the Zuck has it in for me. The NSA already knows everything that goes into these kinds of databases and a lot more anyway...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:14PM (2 children)
Err, care to explain that one?
I have several Google accounts, not one of them has my credit card number, or bank card number...(well, at least I've never given them the bloody things, but as it's Google we're talking about, who knows?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:38PM
I signed up with Google Project Fi cell service and they had the audacity to ask me to provide them with a credit card. Bastards. Expecting me to give them carte blanche to my finances all because I wanted cell service.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:43PM
They used to call it Google Wallet. But someone must have said, "this is a terrible wallet. Because you can only put money in it. Not sexy pictures!" So now it's Google Pay, much better name. But I wish they'd let us put pictures in it.
(Score: 1) by noneof_theabove on Sunday June 24 2018, @01:43PM
When your business model [or a product you want] is a hidden and inaccessible floor or two filled with lawyers....
YOU NEED A NEW BUSINESS MODEL ! ! ! period, full stop, end of discussion.
=====
African saying: We are all ignorant, but to choose ignorance is stupidity.
Mine: We have all failed to pay attention and respond, but to choose inaction is complicity. [may be criminal]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @02:37PM (3 children)
Too bad I doubt this makes zero changes on "phone number extortion" some like to do. At first you use, say, email provider without a phone number because it allows you to not enter it, and then after a time BOOM "your account was flagged as sending spam" (yeah, right), "someone tried to login way to many times wrong", "your IP changed", "we are hungry dicks" and until you provide a phone number to identify yourself (how they are supposed to know I'm me if they never had the number in the first place?) your data is hostage.
(Score: 2) by Apparition on Sunday June 24 2018, @03:08PM (2 children)
What makes it worse is that many of these companies requiring telephone numbers also reject VoIP telephone numbers, (a la Google Voice). They require your direct mobile or home telephone number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @03:44PM (1 child)
I've also seen some web sites that at least SAY they will only take cell phone numbers. (They will have to pull my POTS landline from my cold dead hands)
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:55PM
I have an SMS shortcode so I know a lot about phone. And the SMS, otherwise known as texting, doesn't work with land line. Only with cell phone.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:01PM (3 children)
IF they are up front about the consent to allow us to do *x* as (part) of the price of our service before you sign up/purchase it, AND if they don't change or expand their terms afterwards AND their terms are less than 1000 words long and clear enough that the average high school sophomore can understand them, THEN I feel it should be allowed. Probably.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:58PM (1 child)
When there's contracts I like to go over them with my lawyers. And we cross out the parts we don't like.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25 2018, @03:08AM
Good luck doing that with TOS nonsense. Just another reason why they're bogus.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Monday June 25 2018, @08:24PM
Bingo. That is an offer of a contract, where the exchange of consideration [wikipedia.org] is the provider's service for your personal data from which interests can be inferred. I'm no lawyer, but this would appear to justify the use of personal data as a permissible "performance of a contract" pursuant to article 6(1)(b) [gdpr-info.eu], rather than trying to force "consent" pursuant to 6(1)(a).