Taken literally this means it's illegal to provide a service in exchange for tracking. Can someone elaborate on whether this is true and what else it applies to or what else other business models are made outright illegal?
The "forced consent" so many apps and services use is scummy at best and I have no qualms about this tactic being denied at regulatory level.
Inb4 someone comes back with an argument about advertising/tracking being the "only" way some things can survive, then I won't miss them, and if they want options then they should allow for a reasonably priced usage fee, so that we can escape this "ads/tracking or nothing" business model.
See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-IN...
> In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation. Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.
(My italics.) The second sentence seems clear: "consent is presumed not to be freely given" if the service could be provided without the consent. Which means consent cannot be traded in exchange for an unrelated service, like e.g. webmail.
I'm not sure what the relation between the two sentences is. Does the second one ("consent is presumed...") apply only to the cases addressed by the first, i.e. "where there is a clear imbalance"? Or are they independent?
Consent is presumed not to be freely given IF it does not allow..., OR IF the performance...
https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/7.htm
In answer to your question the two items are independent. The first item gets at the idea that it's not possible to provide consent where the you really have no choice but to consent (i.e due to imbalance of power). One area of particular interest is in the field of employer-employee relations. Bundling up consent with a job offers means it's very difficult for the employer to refuse.
The other item gets at general service provision. You shouldn't make consent a condition of providing a service where that consent isn't necessary to provide the service.
So really the feeling at least consent-wise is that Google cannot attach consent to gather info for advertising with a service provision like search.
However they may instead seek to rely on a separate processing ground under art 6. The main one would be legitimate interests. There is some debate over the applicability if that ground is acceptable though.
/edit Plus the new ePrivacy Regulation brings additional considerations - in particular there's not currently any legitimate interests ground for processing
Visit turbotax.com to file a tax return, it asks for your bank account before you fill out the tax information. But it's not required, unless you're reporting interest earnings on that account.
On turbotax.com, after you fill out the tax form you have a refund of overpaid taxes. The site asks for your bank account in order to arrange for the refund to be deposited, or instead they can arrange for you to receive a paper check and you don't have to give your bank account.