Facebook will ignore data collection ban issued in Germany over WhatApp rules
techspot.com
techspot.com
This line to me sounds incredibly sinister. For a long time I've been fearmongering about the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states. It sounds rather disconcerting when Facebook is engaging in diplomacy and brinksmanship with powerful nation states. Even worse, when they're winning.
It's at least encouraging that the European Union is concerned about Facebook's growing power and political influence. The incumbent American institution seems to have all-but ignored this growing problem. Of course there were lots of crocodile tears about "Russian collusion" and "Fortifying the Election", and so on. However through all that, there doesn't seem to have been much questioning of the nature of Big Tech's power, only the direction of its application.
The Australian government was looking for mandatory negotiations with media companies, forcing them to pay for content. They relaxed that "mandatory" clause a bit and added longer periods for notification and negotiation.
In the past year, Facebook has signed revenue-sharing deals with most of the major news platforms in Australia (ongoing) and on Monday of this week, they announced they would be investing $15 million in regional news media. https://www.fool.com.au/2021/05/10/facebook-to-invest-15-mil...
Google has also signed contracts with some of the major media companies.
Google, and the other tech companies should've strong armed, and threaten to quit (and perhaps, actually do) displaying _any_ australian media outlets in their search engines.
I think google didn't want to play chicken because the fees they are asked to pay is relatively small (given their size), and a fight with the aus gov't would've been a bit ugly (because it's an indirect fight that the media conglomerate has managed to strong arm the gov't to fight for them). Alas, it wasn't meant to be, and Google (and others) deemed it a small price to pay - what a letdown for ordinary australians and a huge win for the entrenched media conglomerate in australia.
> Unlikely, Facebook will probably back down like they did with Austraila
Also, you're mistaken about what happened here. Australia blinked. Facebook got most of what it wanted. Only then did Facebook unban Australian news.
Then they can contest the injunction and if wasn't justified, it will be revoked. But they can't just ignore it.
Like, if the city of Atlanta had a privacy commission and ordered Facebook not to do something, Facebook would probably just ignore that since cities in the U.S. do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce. I have no idea whether the same type of limitation exists in this case.
Presumably Facebook weighed the risks before going ahead. We'll see if their decision turns out to be the right one.
In the long run, you can only operate in a jurisdiction in which you are welcome. Especially when your position is unique like Facebook's. A foreign company that openly ignores the law is not and I can only attribute Facebook's behaviour to arrogance.
Bureaucrats are not as powerful as politicians, and I think that the EU is slowly and belatedly coming to the realisation that it needs to control its computing and communications infrastructure, in order for it to preserve independence from the other big powers -- such as the USA and China.
So I think that it's quite possible in the coming years that the German and EU authorities will come to the conclusion that Facebook are too big for their boots and need to be taken down a peg or two -- for example by requiring them to divest themselves of Instagram and other acquisitions, or maybe banning them from the EU entirely and building their own alternatives.
I wish they were banned from the EU, for a variety of reasons. As an American living in Croatia, I can affirm that social media works differently abroad and it is a lot more pleasant.
Facebook is probably exploiting a loophole. The European Commission [1] should make an example out of them.
"More than 90% of Europeans say they want the same data protection rights across the EU and regardless of where their data is processed." [2]
Facebook will lose some in this, but they will reap some benefits, by trying the Germany route, or they would not be attempting this. They probably have some carte blanche (wild card) that they plan on playing.
The EU should make an example of them. Facebook have always been in contempt of the GDPR, and are certainly perpetually violating it.
Data privacy is not a joke. It is a legal framework in the EU. Also, it is about respect of others and not abusing their rights. Yes, it is a right in the EU: "The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates that EU citizens have the right to protection of their personal data." [3]
[1] European Commission Information: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodie...
[1][2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data...
Hopefully this will change and more people come to understand that this is an issue.
Here is the press release from HmbDfPI which describes the collection and usage restrictions in more detail:
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/assets/pdf/2021-05-11-press-r...
The injunction only lasts three months, during which time the Commissioner will bring the matter to the EDPB. There is no guarantee the EDPB will pursue it.
> the level of power held by these multinationals approaching those of small states
I'd say Facebook, Google and a few others are far more powerful than MANY small states.
If they are banned in Europe, the new service will be pay to use in order to generate revenue. In which case, nobody outside Europe would use it. In which case, barely anyone inside Europe would use it.
Facebook knows this, and likely Germany knows this. So, they're really deciding whether they want Facebook or any Facebook like site to exist in Germany. I would be very surprised if Facebook lost this battle.
If you think I'm incorrect, just realize that the only way china was able to get their citizens off of Facebook was to block them entirely. And even then, nobody outside china cares to use their social media platforms.
WhatsApp previously was a paid app and had 500 million paying users.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/whatsapp-hits-1-5-billion-...
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
What does losing the battle means for Facebook in your view? Continuing to operate in Germany after yielding to it's regulation or, leaving Germany (cutting service for German-based requests) to avoid yielding to the regulation?
What’s wrong with going back to keyword data and affiliate marketing ?
Duckduckgo is pretty profitable just based on that according to them.
Sure not super profitable like google , but do we want this world in hands of a search engine giants ?
Did people not advertise or buy things without the new internet’s atrocious crimes under the name of personalised targeting ?
They did.
It's time for WhatsApp to be removed from under the control of this toxic company.
And from then on it will be a slippery slope to add more and more websites to the banlist.
Some light: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/04/the-eus-terrorist-content...
What I‘m worried about is filtering infrastructure in tech space.
But let's start with theory: is there really need for global reach social net site ? You just need family and friends. But that escalates quick... Also just find and add in same portal is a basic feature. So how to split FB ?
Otherwise there is a plausible strategy to drag things in courts for long time meanwhile continuing the - possible - violations as stated by the government.
Facebook can't back down. Unlike other companies, who might be able to adjust their business practices, however unwillingly, into compliance, for Facebook, violating their users' privacy is their business model. Everything. The whole enchilada.
Facebook's business model is illegal.
This will be an epic struggle...popcorn ready.
If this was some random small company you could imagine that the regulators have bigger fish to fry, but in this case this is the #1 offender worldwide when it comes to privacy - if there are "fish to fry", this is the biggest fish, and the regulator's lack of serious action (such as the million-dollar fines everyone is fear-mongering about) suggests they're either incompetent or complicit.
Maybe suing your local privacy regulator in local court is the next step? Open Rights Group is taking that approach in the UK: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/privacy-organ...
Ban it. It's the only way.
Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
But fines and tickets being pegged to income is a good idea. Fixed amounts for fines are really expensive if you don’t make much money. Similarly, they aren’t much of a deterrent if they are a small amount of your income.
Facebook has a distinctly high profit ratio (2020 Facebook revenue was $85 billion, net income $29 billion), so 4% of revenue means a lot less to Facebook than other companies that GDPR restrains. 4% of their revenue is $3.4 billion which is 11% of their net income.
And the potential negative impact of Facebook's negligence in data handling is distinctly greater than other companies, Facebook collects far more data than most other companies and has access to far more personal data. They have somehow managed to convince a huge portion of the world's population to share a significant tap of data into their lives.
Another venue is to go directly after Facebooks European customers and make it illegal for any company to pay Facebook for ads targeting European customers.
In the end this would force Facebook to abandon Europe and lead to local competitors taking over that market weakening Facebooks network effects in non-US markets.
this is an escalation and delaying game and so far facebook is banking on some political saving grace that probably wont come as well privacy is considered an human rights by European courts and not something an simple short term political majority can simply erase because it's convenient for some US megacorp.
If the showdown happens in the highly independent German court system, i just don't see how American political pressure is going to stop the slow but steady path of escalating measures likely to be taken if Facebook refuses to comply with court rulings.
The US needs to implement an equivalent privacy law.
They'd have to close everything in the EU. I can't imagine the rest of the EU would be fine with it.
And that's probably more than Facebook is willing to do - it would mean no advertising in the EU.
Of course, they could defy that order as well and hope that their assets are safe elsewhere in the world. Or, you know. their executives have seen enough of Rome and Paris.
Facebook violates China's content policies. As a result, China blocks Facebook.
Likewise, the EU is welcome to set up a firewall and do the same. Facebook isn't obligated to do anything other than cease operation of local offices.
The EU actually has a huge leverage to push things, it just chooses not to exercise that power most of the time.
The RCEP isn't an internal market. In its ideal outcome it's a partial trade agreement, not all-inclusive. In its present condition, given relations between its members keeps getting worse, it's barely a functioning trade agreement at all. The odds are overwhelming it'll rip apart, and soon. See: China vs Australia & Co.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200813235643/http://slawsonand...
> Article 3(2), a new feature of the GDPR, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over companies that have nothing but an internet presence in the EU and offer goods or services to EU residents[1]. While the GDPR requires these companies[2] to follow its data processing rules, it leaves the question of enforcement unanswered. Regulations that cannot be enforced do little to protect the personal data of EU citizens.
> This article discusses how U.S. law affects the enforcement of Article 3(2). In reality, enforcing the GDPR on U.S. companies may be almost impossible. First, the U.S. prohibits enforcing of foreign-country fines. Thus, the EU enforcement power of fines for noncompliance is negligible. Second, enforcing the GDPR through the designated representative can be easily circumvented. Finally, a private lawsuit brought by in the EU may be impossible to enforce under U.S. law.
[snip]
> Currently, there is a hole in the GDPR wall that protects European Union personal data. Even with extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. companies with only an internet presence in the EU, the GDPR gives little in the way of tools to enforce it. Fines from supervisory authorities would be stopped by the prohibition on enforcing foreign fines. The company can evade enforcement through a representative simply by not designating one. Finally, private actions may be stalled on issues of personal jurisdiction. If a U.S. company completely disregards the GDPR while targeting customers in the EU, it can use the personal data of EU citizens without much fear of the consequences. While the extraterritorial jurisdiction created by Article 3(2) may have seemed like a good way to solve the problem of foreign companies who do not have a physical presence in the EU, it turns out to be practically useless.
I mean what are they going to do, invade Silicon Valley with their armed forces? It's not really enforceable. They can set up a firewall if they like and censor Facebook, that's the most they can do.
And hee hee, the freedom-loving EU citizens will riot if they try to censor the internet, we all know that :)
Checkmate, GDPR is not enforceable.
The real way to solve the problem is the US should implement its own privacy laws, and preferably better ones than requiring some stupid annoying cookie popups.