But you can make certain ways how services are provided illegal. How is that not enforceable?
Universal service obligations worldwide. Anti-discrimination laws. Mandatory customer warranties. Regulatory standards. The whole world is replete with examples where regulation places restrictions on goods and services, and the conditions under which they can be offered. It is absolutely feasible to disallow mandatory data collection for services. I am honestly struggling to see what problem you can possibly be seeing with this.
If you're not paying then the company is, and that's a cost. You can't demand that a service be provided to you for free without some greater provisions that subsidize that service. There's nothing illogical about this.
Your examples aren't the same thing. Regulations on how something is offered while being compensated is different from claiming that a service must be offered even if it can't be compensated. We've already discussed this with some of the biggest law firms in the world and I suggest you talk to counsel if you want further clarity.
> 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 don't think 'we want to sell your information for money' would be considered a necessary part of whatever webservice/website you offer, given that you could choose a different way to monetize it. Thus you need consent, but clearly the situation you present does not meet the definition of 'freely given. But I hope we will soon see this issue being decided in court.
If data processing is necessary to provide the service then the service cannot be provided without consent. This is perfectly allowed in GDPR. Ask a law firm for further details.
1. Companies can offer services which exploit personal data as part of their commercial business plan.
2. That collection must be reasonably described as a "legitimate interest" for the purposes of establishing a lawful basis for processing under the GDPR.
3. The "legitimate interest" in this case must be such that the site could not reasonably operate without targeted advertising. on order for explicit consent (and the associated option to opt-out) to not be required.
If I understand you correctly, then I agree that if you can construct a valid "legitimate interest" in this vein then you could reasonably require visitors to accept targeted advertising, without it being a GDPR violation. It wasn't clear from your argument that this was what you were saying – statements like "you cant force companies to provide a service at cost to them" are simply not accurate, because it is entirely reasonable and common that regulations require companies to provide services with certain conditions attached (indeed, the GDPR is one of these when you are operating on the "lawful basis" of consent). And further, it is entirely feasible for a regulation to be incompatible with an existing business model, such that a company would no longer be able to offer a service at all (if, for example, TechCrunch were unable to make enough income though non-customised advertising).
However, this position is _far_ from being as clear as you seem to suggest. It is heavily disputed whether or not "online behavioural advertising" constitutes a "legitimate interest" under the GDPR. There are several outstanding complaints on this matter and the question of whether or not OBA can constitute a "legitimate interest" is not at all settled.
All things laws have forced makers not to do. This is just the same, except it concerns misuse of personal data.
A company that requires ads and data to pay for the service cannot be forced to provide that service without those ads and data at no cost to a user. The choice is freely given as a user by not giving consent to data, which means the site doesn't offer the service.
AIUI the GDPR means you can't exclude users on the basis of their willingness to give up PII. So you're going to need to charge everyone. You can probably refund those who do give your PII, or pay them for it in a more direct way. But you can't offer a service where the only differentiator between access and denial of service is "give us your PII"?
GDPR can prevent extraneous data capture but it can't force companies to provide services without compensation.
A business is free to choose their compensation model. Your choice is to not engage if you don't want it, not to demand it for free regardless.
But they are not. Your compensation model generally cannot include such things as slavery, child labour, prostitution... Many places place limits on the amount of interest that may be charged on a loan.
A business is free to choose their compensation model within the confines of what the law allows. In case of the GDPR it disallows paying through PII. Thus a business is not free to choose this model.
However it can't force a company that requires data to be processed for a service to still provide that service when the data is not consented to. That is impossible without breaking the very law that prevents it.
This whole thread is just people refusing that data can be necessary for the service, which is fine if that's your interpretation, but not what major law firms actually agree on and it's certainly not going to hold up in court.
I'm failing to understand how Techcrunch's provision of articles is impossible without my provision of PII, they seem to manage to display those articles to other people even when I don't give them _my_ PII.
It sounds like someone is confused as to what essential means; it doesn't mean "carry on using the same privacy infringing business model regardless".
HN users should contact a law firm instead of being self appointed lawyers downvoting everything they misunderstand.
Do I need your insurance renewal dates before I can serve you a pint of beer? No. But if I had them I might be able to give you slightly cheaper beer (and feed back to the insurance company that you drink beer; a fact they might use to increase your insurance). So, under GDPR can I refuse to serve beer to people who won't give up PII, no, I have to come up with another way to ensure payment, like asking for money, or advertising to you without PII, or ...
Continue to do so and face the possible consequences, close doors or leave the market, or find an alternative way. Just as happens with other laws.
Businesses are not completely free to choose their compensation model - many places have long standing laws against unreasonable rates of interest or other illegal terms, discrimination etc. This is just another more recent limit.