Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolc | Hacker News Reader

I think a lot of lawyers are poring over provision 42 of GDPR these days:

"(42) Where processing is based on the data subject's consent, the controller should be able to demonstrate that the data subject has given consent to the processing operation. [...] For consent to be informed, the data subject should be aware at least of the identity of the controller and the purposes of the processing for which the personal data are intended. Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment."

Are people free to leave Facebook?

Me, I need an account with Google for my job. Will they now only be allowed to demand I consent to the parts of the data processing necessary to provide the services I use? Or in other words, since I don't rely on their advertising, does GDPR mandate that opt-in to tracking for ads must be optional?

View on HN

Rather read this:

GDPR, Article 4: ‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her;

You can delete your account, yes.

I can't delete my account with Google without detriment.

Your employer will agree to their terms on your behalf, and if you are not comfortable with either that process or the terms, you are welcome to terminate your employment. This is no different from companies accepting ToS/EULA from any other technology vendor.

FWIW, Google's commercial terms are not the same as consumer terms ... again, like every other software vendor.

> you are welcome to terminate your employment.

That fails the test:

> Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.

I suspect "genuine" and "free" are terms of art. Not to mention "detriment". Reading it with common sense in mind may not be productive.

While this is certainly possible, I would have to see a (legal dictionary?) to change my mind.

Any links?

The words are probably defined within the document, not in the legal dictionary.

My understanding is that the end user is not the subject in a commercial contract. The licensing entity (the business) is the end user and as a result, if they accept the terms, which them apply to all employees, it's irrelevant whether the consumer terms apply to the employees' individual cases or not because they're no the licensee/subject.

Again, this is how things generally work in commercial contracts outside of GDPR (including Safe Harbor and EU/95/46 before it), and I don't see why this would be different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com