Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection

[bilekas]

This is still a bit insane to me. If I understand correct, you have to fill a form with a justification why you object, and then Meta will decide if you can be removed from the detailed data collection ?

Privacy is a basic human right, and the strawman argument of "Well don't just use their services then" is ridiculous with their influence. Also them touting to "connected the world"

When in reality is "connecting to world, but only if we can record everything you do"

[gman83]

In terms of Facebook where I live, "Well don't just use their services then" is simply impossible. Almost all of my kids' sports activities and parent groups are on WhatsApp, I have to use it.

[that_guy_iain]

I'm pretty sure it's already been decided that Meta's data collection is a breach of EU laws. Which if true, this opt-out still isn't really going to do anything.

[saiya-jin]

FB doesn't comply with what EU wants, then block it on whole continent. 1 or 2 weeks of annoyance and then we can use whatever alternative is out there.

FB would be hurt so much more by this than EU users (market bigger than US, and other countries would follow), especially long term that they will quickly reconsider their uber-arrogant behavior. Really, who the f*k do they think they are, just another greedy corp run by sociopathic a-holes that will sooner or later be just part of history.

[irrational]

Going to the toilet is also a basic human right, yet many places don’t have widespread free public toilets. It doesn’t seem like a basic human right has inherent allowances.

[pibechorro]

There is no right to privacy, you either have it, or you don't. You either stay inside or go out, dress or stay nude, play with data collecting company products or dont. You may build a whole elaborate burocrazy to keep your "rights" intact, but they will corrupt and be captured by financial interest as it always does over a large enough timeline and all you will have is the illusion of privacy accompanied by the incompetence of the machination proping it up, at large expense.

If you want privacy, seek it out, refuse those that take it from you. Incuding Meta.

[nxpnsv]

Yeah that does sound insane. I still think not using their services really is the better option though...

[sgregnt]

If it is a right, what if I don't want to share it with a government? Can I?

[polishdude20]

You connecting to the world also means the world connects to you.

[isanjay112]

> strawman argument of "Well don't just use their services then" is ridiculous with their influence

I do not use any of facebook's apps or websites

But from what I can see from DuckDuckGo App tracking protection multiple apps load Facebook trackers. Basically there is no escaping facebook even if you don't touch any of their apps.

[favsq]

Have you considered not using their services if you don't want to pay with your data in exchange for their computing power, data storage, engineering time, etc?

[zelphirkalt]

Aaand another case of big tech acting stupid, misinterpreting the law, just to continue acting like they do, violating the law, a liiittle bit longer, milking that cash cow of mining illegally obtained data as long as possible. No signs of remorse to be expected there. Hopefully this blatant violation goes into the next law suit against them and makes the outcome a bit worse for them.

[jacquesm]

Meta is way out of line. There is absolutely no way that the EU is going to allow Meta to break the law at scale without regulators throwing a fit. They might even get to be made into an example of what happens when you repeatedly try to knowingly break the law.

[black_puppydog]

> when you repeatedly try to knowingly break the law

IANAL but I'd add "blatantly", "brazenly" or some such here. This cannot be in line with things like "it must be as easy to opt out as to opt in" (paraphrasing GDPR) and they know it.

IMHO this (like, sadly, many examples before from Meta) could be a perfect occasion to pierce the corporate veil. Whoever signed off on this should never be left in charge of customer data again.

[kergonath]

Lol no. That is a great way to have the European Parliament and the Commission to have a thorough look into your data harvesting practices. And lose yet another lawsuit.

[input_sh]

NOYB is a much better source. These two paragraphs alone do a better job than the entire Ars article: https://noyb.eu/en/meta-facebook-instagram-switching-legitim...

> Background. The GDPR allows to process personal data if a company complies with at least one of six legal basis in Article 6 GDPR. Most of these six options are irrelevant for advertisement. While most companies require users to consent ("opt-in") for the use of personal data for advertisement, Meta (Facebook and Instagram) have tried to bypass this requirement by arguing that the use of personal data for ads is "necessary under the contract" when the GDPR became applicable in 2018. noyb has instantly filed a series of complaints and ultimately won them before the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in December 2022. Meta got until April to stop the practice.

> One illegal practice replaced by next illegal practice. Now Meta announces to give in against the pressure by noyb, but instead of switching to an "opt-in" system, like Google or Microsoft, they now try to argue the next unlawful option, by claiming that their "legitimate interest" to process user data would override the fundamental right to privacy and data protection of users. This was tried by other companies before, but rejected by the regulators multiple times (see e.g. the Italian DPA on TikTok or the Belgian DPA on the IAB TCF at para 441).

[top_sigrid]

Came here to say this. NOYB are doing incredible work and if you have some spare money, I think it is a good option for a small monthly donation, as I do it.

Hopefully at some point the lever of big monetary sentences will be made use of from regulatory enforcement.

[raven105x]

I'm honestly shocked most sensible EU countries don't simply DNS block Meta at this point.

[rendall]

Ars Technica is not much better. Here are the "always active" non-choices from their own GDPR pop-up ("Powered by OneTrust"). That is to say, you cannot opt-out of these:

  Match and combine offline data sources: Always Active
  Link different devices: Always Active
  Receive and use automatically-sent device characteristics for identification: Always Active
  Ensure security, prevent fraud, and debug: Always Active
  Technically deliver ads or content: Always Active

If you don't open their "show purposes" window and "Confirm my choices" from that window, then you are also agreeing to:

  Store and/or access information on a device
  Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development
  Use precise geolocation data
  Actively scan device characteristics for identification

[account42]

The EU really needs to go harder after such violations. Companies should not even want to consider playing these games.

[oblak]

Much better? Allowing JS on Ars is a recepi for data slurpocalypse. They've had 10+ ads and tracking third parties for at least decade.

I won't even touch on doxxing Snownden's girlfriend and the amount of questionable, at best, political content they publish on a daily basis.

[baynoob]

I see a lot of comments where they prefer telegram over WhatsApp. Surprising part is whatsapp is end to end encrypted by default for all conversations but telegram is not.

[ranguna]

To opt out?

Shouldn't it be opt in?

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

I think data collection on the scale of what Meta is doing should just be illegal altogether, or at the very least it should be mandated as opt-in with the opt-in process being filled with warnings and never being the easiest way to get rid of a banner. It should be hidden away under a menu and there should be no banner at all.

The dark patterns used to trick people into opting in need to end. I religiously opt out on every GDPR banner, but even I've accidentally opted in sometimes because the button layout is intentionally designed to be confusing.

[selivanovp]

If something is free- you're the product.

[charcircuit]

No, this form is about right to object. It isn't about consent because consent is not needed for legitimate interests, which in this case is to offer personalized advertising.

This form lets people object to the use of their data for a legitimate interest.

[siquick]

What about the 15 years of behavioural data they already hold? Can we request that is deleted?

[steveridout]

GDPR obliges them to delete your data upon request. But I'm not sure how well Facebook/Meta complies with this. This post from 4 years ago doesn't sound encouraging: https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ Does anyone know if they've improved since then?

[hutzlibu]

I would say, you can request anything from them.

Like I request people to just not use FB anymore, if they don't want to be tracked by them.

Might have the same effect.

[qikInNdOutReply]

No, that is already part of the software framework with which the palantir-cattlerattlers drive the large crowd along the "golden path" on the scenario tree.

The cattle does not get to object, reject it or vote on it. The wellfare of the rancher is all that matters and any attempt to disucss that or just turn around, will just "never work out" because of unavoidable infighting. But dont worry, we are not in chicago yet.

Who could have imagined, that stripping your brain naked would make you hackable and controllable, thus turning you into a organic component with an API for behavioural crowd simulations.

deMoohCrazy has begone! And all that is a best-case-scenario.

[AstixAndBelix]

Ah yes, the good old dark pattern of unnecessary bureaucracy. Facebook getting more and more ideas from nation states in order to subdue its netizens

[sirsinsalot]

I will be adding every Meta domain and property I can think of to my network blocking. A good list to start with is here:

https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/tree/master/corporatio...

[raverbashing]

Looks like the flow of stupid ideas coming from FB didn't stop at the metaverse

Yeah sure I will fill a form to "opt-out" and I'm sure that the DP authorities will be fine with it

[williamvds]

I don't see it as stupid. I see it as an intentional delay tactic to maneuver around a regulator which, so far, acts far too slowly and imposes weak fines in response to flagrant privacy lawbreaking.

As long as Facebook can treat the fines as a cost of doing business they're happy. That, and as long as their (bullshit) value proposition of personalising ads by collecting as much personal data as possible is unaffected.

[Macha]

I don't see how this flies as even Google was recently forced into compliance by the French recently to have an actual functional top level reject all.

[th4tg41]

NOYB are heroes!

[Havoc]

I want meta to request permission to exist.

[rendall]

The comments on the article are brutal.

[leke]

but meta is a paid service, right? So why should we hand over our privacy?

[gumballindie]

Have they completely lost it? I kept a facebook account just to stay in touch with people, but following this madness I will simply find other means to do so and completely shut it down. This is ridiculous.

[wkat4242]

Umm opt-out is not how GDPR works. It mandates opt-in for tracking.