The aspect I find most interesting and internationally relevant is that as these local rulings proliferate, they kinda make it visible to what degree companies finance their operations by selling user data. The more the business model relies on this, the more likely companies are to get hit with a ruling like this — and it's not just the ruling that's interesting, but also what Facebook's reaction will be. If they stop offering or reduce WhatsApp services in Germany (or India), that's a great indicator that the service isn't profitable without the sale (or other commercial exploitation, Facebook is an ad company after all) of large amounts of user data.
I don’t think you can “talk to” or warn companies like Facebook. You just shut them down bring them to their knees. You’ve to do to them what Apple App Store is doing to them.
I think all these warnings and then those rare pocket change fines are nothing but slaps on the wrists that Facebooks of the world might be allocating in their annual expenses predictably.
But convenience comes in the way and Facebook knows it.
As for India, Facebook will be fine as long as it shares data with the Govt. Hell, it might even become official communication app in India endorsed by no less than the glorious PM while hugging tightly his “dear friend Mark” on stage.
"Germany's leading data protection regulator for Facebook has banned the social network from using data from WhatsApp users."
Not to be pedantic, but the parent comment is making a common mistake by using the term "selling" to refer to the way that "tech" companies like Facebook/WhatsApp sell users out.
Facebook/WhatsApp does not need to "sell" data. They can honestly say they do not sell data, and that is exactly what they say in their public communications, hoping to fool readers who believe "selling user data" is the problem. (Maybe they give data away instead. Researchers, API users, and others have had signifcant access in the past. Regulating only commercial exploitation might not prohibit those transfers.)
What they do sell is access to users.
Thus what we want to regulate is not "selling" but "using".^1
(Ideally we want to regulate collection as well, but this does not account for data already collected.)
Read the press release from the HmbDfPI. There is nothing about selling, only about collecting and using.
1. One instance where we might want to prohibit sale (or transfer) of data is in mergers and acquisitions. If, e.g, the user entrusts company A with data, then if company A goes bankrupt, company B should not be able to acquire the data without the user's express permission.
The same happened at a smaller scale when Chinese regulators ruled loot boxes must disclose their loot tables. Even though they aren’t guaranteed to be identical in other countries, a great deal was learned about how such games operate.
> If they stop offering or reduce WhatsApp services in Germany (or India), that's a great indicator that the service isn't profitable without the sale (or other commercial exploitation, Facebook is an ad company after all) of large amounts of user data.
Don't we already know that about WhatsApp though? What other revenue source does it have?
The real problem is that its never enough for these companies. Charge me some monthly fee for whatsapp and I'll pay, but no, that's not enough for them.
> Johannes Caspar, who heads Hamburg’s privacy authority, issued a three-month emergency ban, prohibiting Facebook from continuing with the data collection. He also asked a panel of European Union data regulators to take action and issue a ruling across the 27-nation bloc. The new WhatsApp terms enabling the data scoop are invalid because they are intransparent, inconsistent and overly broad, he said.
> Facebook’s WhatsApp unit called Caspar’s claims “wrong” and said the order won’t stop the roll-out of the new terms.
I don't understand how Facebook says this order will not stop the roll-out. Are they implying that the authority has no power to implement/enforce the ban?
This article is pretty vague. What does it even mean to ban Facebook "from using data from WhatsApp users"?
Facebook "uses data from WhatsApp users" to support basic features like authentication, is that banned now? What about sending a WhatsApp message to a contact, doesn't that "use data from WhatsApp users"? Facebook has to look up some internal user ID (user data), then route the message to their devices, probably by device ID (also user data). How do you do that if using data banned?
I suspect there's more to it but this particular article isn't telling the story in a particularly clear or helpful manner. Hopefully the actual injunction is not as vague.
"Am Dienstag gab Caspars Behörde bekannt, dass sie eine Anordnung erlassen hat, die es Facebook – also der Mutterfirma von WhatsApp – verbietet, personenbezogene Daten von WhatsApp zu »eigenen Zwecken« zu verarbeiten.
Gemeint ist damit, dass Facebook jene Daten zum Beispiel nicht für sein Anzeigengeschäft nutzen darf. "
Roughly translated as: Whatsapp is not allowed to share personal user data with Facebook for Facebooks own use, for example Facebook cannot collect data for the purpose of advertisement (and my guess is any other form of monetization). Facebook says further down in the article they currently don't share data between the services for those purposes.
I also think you're confused about the scope. It's no problem that WhatsApp uses its own userdata, the problem is WhatsApp sharing data with Facebook, which is a distinct service.
your comment is very relevant, most other comments focus on existing regulations like GDPR. But IIRC the Whatsapp takeover was only granted from EU regulatory offices with the requirement that Facebook would not join the Whatsapp users data into their systems [0]
To take this further, we also need to reverse other purchases like Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, Zenimax, Doubleclick, PA Semi, and so on. We also need a new vocabulary and new concepts. We shouldn't rely on traditional notions of monopoly market share or "consumer harm" to decide when an acquisition/merger/stake should be allowed. We need a new definition to prevent gigantic conglomerates with immense market power, and then we need to enforce that law aggressively, in splitting up existing companies and scrutinizing future deals.
Yes, some mere 10 years later politicians in the EU realize that FB should never have been allowed to take over WA/Instragram. The problem is, the politicians in charge at the time did probably not even use a smartphone and had no idea about the tech sphere.
In my opinion, FAMG (FAANG minus Apple and Netflix plus Microsoft) must be broken up. They all do use their market power to prevent competition, and they continue to use their money to buy competitors and/or startups that could compete one day.
That German authority interprets the law in some way, Facebook interprets it in some other way. i assume the courts will decide. Seems reasonable to me.
This works in WA's favor in some contexts. I have a fresh wave of friends who tell me I should reinstall WA, because they "don't do data sharing in Germany".
I note that their terms still say that they do share data; they just have a PR line outside the terms that says they'll do it as soon as they "reach an agreement" with regulators.
I further note that their entire business model for WA depends on sharing data for advertising. Trusting them on their PR agent's word not to share data is the fox guarding the hen house.
Unless we have German police personally looking over shoulders wherever WhatsApps data is handled, i don't see how this exchange of information can be prevented.
This cat and mouse game will continue forever as I don't expect governments that give Facebook a clean chit in exchange of data sharing to do much policing. The only real power lies in our hands. Many of us change/mute the channel when the ads come on, do the same effectively online by blocking ads and if that is not possible, by _never_ clicking on ads. The whole point is to sell and if we ensure that we don't pass any signal back in terms of how we are deciding, the point of ad spends themselves will be in question. The only effective wakeup call for such scum companies is their revenue taking a hit.
If German users would switch. WhatsApp is the main Messanger in Germany, and a lot of the people who live here are not that interested in privacy (although there is still a relatively large piece who is). It‘s too abstract for some people how their data is used. The Government needs to explain more and not just create rules which people find annoying to follow.
EU should completely ban Facebook and WhatsApp entirely. EU should say fuck that rotten person called Zuckerberg. From tomorrow all ISPs will block all Facebook products.
A legitimate democratically elected national government in a continental union that conditioned its anti-trust approval of the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook precisely on personal data not being used in that way.
The legal situation is that Facebook doesn’t own any of this data. It has collected it, but the data is owned and controlled by individual users, and they have the right to say what Facebook should be allowed to do with it.
[+] [-] eqvinox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crossroadsguy|4 years ago|reply
I think all these warnings and then those rare pocket change fines are nothing but slaps on the wrists that Facebooks of the world might be allocating in their annual expenses predictably.
But convenience comes in the way and Facebook knows it.
As for India, Facebook will be fine as long as it shares data with the Govt. Hell, it might even become official communication app in India endorsed by no less than the glorious PM while hugging tightly his “dear friend Mark” on stage.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|4 years ago|reply
Not to be pedantic, but the parent comment is making a common mistake by using the term "selling" to refer to the way that "tech" companies like Facebook/WhatsApp sell users out.
Facebook/WhatsApp does not need to "sell" data. They can honestly say they do not sell data, and that is exactly what they say in their public communications, hoping to fool readers who believe "selling user data" is the problem. (Maybe they give data away instead. Researchers, API users, and others have had signifcant access in the past. Regulating only commercial exploitation might not prohibit those transfers.)
What they do sell is access to users.
Thus what we want to regulate is not "selling" but "using".^1 (Ideally we want to regulate collection as well, but this does not account for data already collected.)
Read the press release from the HmbDfPI. There is nothing about selling, only about collecting and using.
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/assets/pdf/2021-05-11-press-r...
1. One instance where we might want to prohibit sale (or transfer) of data is in mergers and acquisitions. If, e.g, the user entrusts company A with data, then if company A goes bankrupt, company B should not be able to acquire the data without the user's express permission.
[+] [-] vineyardmike|4 years ago|reply
"Want to keep talking to grandma? Better tell your government to leave us alone"
[+] [-] lucian1900|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jp555|4 years ago|reply
When I buy ads on Facebook I cannot access any user's data.
Do they have another product offering where I can buy user data? I dont see anything like that.
[+] [-] peteretep|4 years ago|reply
Don't we already know that about WhatsApp though? What other revenue source does it have?
[+] [-] mbilal|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tchalla|4 years ago|reply
> Johannes Caspar, who heads Hamburg’s privacy authority, issued a three-month emergency ban, prohibiting Facebook from continuing with the data collection. He also asked a panel of European Union data regulators to take action and issue a ruling across the 27-nation bloc. The new WhatsApp terms enabling the data scoop are invalid because they are intransparent, inconsistent and overly broad, he said.
[+] [-] humanlion87|4 years ago|reply
I don't understand how Facebook says this order will not stop the roll-out. Are they implying that the authority has no power to implement/enforce the ban?
[+] [-] thamer|4 years ago|reply
Facebook "uses data from WhatsApp users" to support basic features like authentication, is that banned now? What about sending a WhatsApp message to a contact, doesn't that "use data from WhatsApp users"? Facebook has to look up some internal user ID (user data), then route the message to their devices, probably by device ID (also user data). How do you do that if using data banned?
I suspect there's more to it but this particular article isn't telling the story in a particularly clear or helpful manner. Hopefully the actual injunction is not as vague.
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
"Am Dienstag gab Caspars Behörde bekannt, dass sie eine Anordnung erlassen hat, die es Facebook – also der Mutterfirma von WhatsApp – verbietet, personenbezogene Daten von WhatsApp zu »eigenen Zwecken« zu verarbeiten.
Gemeint ist damit, dass Facebook jene Daten zum Beispiel nicht für sein Anzeigengeschäft nutzen darf. "
Roughly translated as: Whatsapp is not allowed to share personal user data with Facebook for Facebooks own use, for example Facebook cannot collect data for the purpose of advertisement (and my guess is any other form of monetization). Facebook says further down in the article they currently don't share data between the services for those purposes.
I also think you're confused about the scope. It's no problem that WhatsApp uses its own userdata, the problem is WhatsApp sharing data with Facebook, which is a distinct service.
https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/apps/whatsapp-hamburger-date...
[+] [-] the-dude|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annadane|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] littlecranky67|4 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-whatsapp-merger-eur...
[+] [-] wnkrshm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amaccuish|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] littlecranky67|4 years ago|reply
In my opinion, FAMG (FAANG minus Apple and Netflix plus Microsoft) must be broken up. They all do use their market power to prevent competition, and they continue to use their money to buy competitors and/or startups that could compete one day.
[+] [-] hrbf|4 years ago|reply
The amount of Facebook’s arrogance at play here is just staggering.
[+] [-] mrjin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ab111111111|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jazu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cuillevel3|4 years ago|reply
Apparently that was too permissive. I guess they had to try?
[+] [-] zwaps|4 years ago|reply
But it also says they might do so at any time, at the latest when the EU okays it.
So yeah, at the very least it is too vague to be a proper privacy policy allowing informed consent
[+] [-] ohthehugemanate|4 years ago|reply
I note that their terms still say that they do share data; they just have a PR line outside the terms that says they'll do it as soon as they "reach an agreement" with regulators.
I further note that their entire business model for WA depends on sharing data for advertising. Trusting them on their PR agent's word not to share data is the fox guarding the hen house.
[+] [-] phito|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FridayoLeary|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fishmaster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noja|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annadane|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseri|4 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/facebook-has-been-told-to-st... [2]: https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/pressemitteilungen/2021/05/20...
[+] [-] noisy_boy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mectag|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokoon|4 years ago|reply
On the other hand, facebook seems like it's deader than dead, it's just the agglomeration of whatsapp, instagram and occulus now.
I'm curious if the Trump election problem is one the reason why facebook is dying.
[+] [-] nr2x|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holoduke|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
That actually happened in my country. Lasted a few days, nothing of substance happened in response. Few people installed alternatives.
[+] [-] rubyist5eva|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CRConrad|4 years ago|reply
That "kind of wannabe authoritarian regime". HTH!
[+] [-] akie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robin_reala|4 years ago|reply