(no title)
BeniBoy | 4 years ago
You can consult the EDPB decision on that matter here: https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/binding-...
EDIT: Max Schrems' reaction (NOYB):
>"We welcome the first decision by the Irish regulator. However, the DPC gets about ten thousand complaints per year since 2018 and this is the first major fine. The DPC also proposed an initial € 50 million fine and was forced by the other European data protection authorities to move towards € 225 million, which is still only 0.08% of the turnover of the Facebook Group. The GDPR foresees fines of up to 4% of the turnover. This shows how the DPC is still extremely dysfunctional."
source: https://noyb.eu/en/statement-dpc-issues-eu-225-million-fine-...
josefx|4 years ago
> The objection raises that not all computationally possible numbers are indeed assigned. Therefore, the lossy hash refers not to at least 16 numbers but to a maximum of 16 numbers. Furthermore, if additional data is stored along with the lossy hash, the number of individuals represented by the associated phone numbers can be reduced as data subjects not matching this additional data can be excluded. If e.g., so the DE SA, the gender is also stored, it is possible to at least divide these 16 in half.
So their hashcodes can be mapped to 16 different users, which can be trivially reduced to a single person if you have any additional information about them.
wnkrshm|4 years ago
They stated to the merger review committee that the WhatsApp takeover couldn't feasably lead to data sharing with Facebook. And got fined 110m EUR for that, a pittance. You couldn't take out an insurance policy against a successful merger for that money. From [0]:
"When Facebook notified the acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014, it informed the Commission that it would be unable to establish reliable automated matching between Facebook users' accounts and WhatsApp users' accounts. It stated this both in the notification form and in a reply to a request of information from the Commission."
Edit: typo
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...
josefx|4 years ago
BeniBoy|4 years ago
Hopefully this will motivate the DPC to be a little more active in the future (nobody likes to be wrong, especially wrong in public).
Some DPA are unwilling to act, the best thing to make them is to file complaint or support organisations that do (see the comment on NOYB). They are bound by laws to act, let's make them !
messe|4 years ago
Y_Y|4 years ago
As for undermining regulations, the EU has procedures for ensuring member states enact compliant legislation, and after that the country has its own legal system, not more corrupt than average. It might be that they're applying the law as they understand it and that the judiciary has some independence from commercial interests.
You're welcome to make the case otherwise, but making accusations as you've done isn't what I'd consider constructive dialogue.
anonymousDan|4 years ago
[deleted]
OliverM|4 years ago
Do you really think like this?
Chris2048|4 years ago