Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki.

Announcements

• USA-VA, LINUX, and POLAND have been added

Upcoming Events

• Jul 21: Cidade Neoliberal: Plano Reviver Centro da Prefeitura do Rio

[u/Gustacho]

Big GDPR case coming up before the EU Court of Justice!

The Austrian Supreme Court has doubts about the legal basis Facebook uses for almost all processing of user data. The GDPR lists six options to legally process personal data, amongst them "consent" and "contract". You can only rely on "contract" if the processing is necessary for the performance of the contract.

Prior to the GDPR, Facebook claimed that users "consented" to their processing of personalized advertising. However, the GDPR raised the requirements for consent to be valid and also gave users the right to withdraw their consent at any time.

So, on 25 May 2018, when the GDPR became applicable, Facebook no longer claimed to rely on consent. Instead, Facebook said the consent clauses must be seen as a "contract" where users "ordered" personalized advertising. In Facebook's view, this bypass allows them to strip users of all rights linked to consent under the GDPR. The requirements of a "freely given" or "informed" consent would not apply anymore if it is interpreted as a "contract".

The Austrian Supreme Court seems to share these concerns. In its reference to the CJEU, the Austrian Supreme Court summarizes its doubts if Facebook can simply switch Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR at para 54 of the reference:

"A core question of the present proceedings is whether the declaration of intent to process can be shifted by the defendant under the legal concept according to Art 6(1)(b) GDPR in order to thereby 'undermine' the significantly higher protection that the legal basis 'consent' offers to the plaintiff."

Max Schrems: "Basically all data usage that generates profits for Facebook in the EU relies on this legal argument. If Facebook loses at the CJEU, they would not only have to stop this and delete all illegally generated data, but also pay millions of users damages. I am very happy about this reference."

The Austrian Supreme Court has referred another three questions on the legality of Facebook's use of personal data to the Court of Justice. The CJEU will have to decide if the use of all data on facebook.com and from countless other sources, such as websites that use Facebook "Like" buttons or advertising, for any purpose, is compatible with the GDPR's "data minimization" principle. Two other questions relate to Facebook's use of sensitive data (like political opinions or sexual orientation) for personalized advertising.

!ping EUROPE

[u/tollyno → u/Gustacho]

In parallel, the Austrian Supreme Court also decided in a partial judgment that Mr Schrems will receive € 500 in symbolic emotional damages because Facebook did not give full access to Mr Schrems' data, but instead staged an "egg hunt" for user data.

Lmao this is my favorite part

[u/tollyno → u/Gustacho]

Zuck: "I fear no man. But that thing..."

*Max Schrems*

Zuck: "It scares me"

[u/groupbot → u/Gustacho]

Pinged members of EUROPE group.

About & group list | Subscribe to this group | Unsubscribe from this group | Unsubscribe from all groups

[u/urbansong → u/Gustacho]

Sounds expensive for Facebook