France Launches Second Salvo Against Facebook (liberation.fr)

Eunuchswear writes: After Mondays decision by the French CNIL (National Center for Computers and Freedom) that Facebook must stop tracking non-users, the DGCCRF (General Direction for Competition, Consumption and Repression of Fraud), has ruled that Facebooks terms of use are abusive and must be changed within 60 days." The linked story is in French, but for those of us who don't speak the language, Google translate works. Here's the DGCCRF's Facebook page.

Comments

how about other third-party tracking?

[Trepidity]

Knowing nothing about French law, is there anything Facebook-specific that led to this ruling? Is there a reason it wouldn't apply to other third-party tracking? For example Doubleclick and those kinds of networks track me across the web even if I've never signed up for an account with them or otherwise accepted their ToS.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Opportunist]

Probably mostly that politicians can't see cookies as easily as they can see FB.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived and worked in France for 15 years now and in the job I'm in have had to deal with the CNIL and the "Informatique et Liberté" law. Basically, if you collect information about a person you are required to declare it to the CNIL, inform the person you are collecting the data about your collection, give the person teh right and the means to examine the data you are collecting about them and finally the right to modify the data collected in case of error.

In the case of cookies, the data is on your machine and you can examine, modify and delete the data as you want. You could argue that you should declare your use of Cookies to the CNIL et inform the users via your "Terms of Service", though I imagine most international companies skip the first step even if they meet the second.

I'm not sure you have to sign a "Terms of Service" as your use of the service is considered as agreement of teh "Terms of Service". You can always stop using the services if you don't agree

D.
 

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[ihtoit]

Monday's ruling is the result of an action concerning nonsubscriber tracking (AKA thid party cookies). Tuesday's concerns unfair contract terms (which is such a problem across all private industry, most European countries have had legislation in place for YEARS to deal with it) which "allow" Facebook to unilaterally delete content, co-opt content, change contract terms without notice... yes, Facebook's ToU for the European sector specifies that content posted by users belongs to Facebook (Section 2 paragraph 1).

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Facebook holds personally identifiable information, which is a breach of the European Data Protection Directive.

In Europe you cannot as a company hold identifying personal data on an individual unless you have legitimate reason to do so, reasons include things such as:

- They have given their permission for you to have the data

- You're working under a law enforcement or similar exemption

- You're being contracted to process the data on behalf of a company that has been given permission (but you cannot do anything other than process it as contracted - i.e. you cannot sell it on or use it yourself)

So if someone has signed up to Facebook, they've given permission for it to hold personal information. But if they have never signed up, and say, someone tags them in a photo with their name, then Facebook is breaking the law (other people cannot give consent for a company to hold your personal information). The problem is that Facebook links all this together with tracking, and so builds a whole personal profile on people it has no legal basis to do so.

It's possible that other ad companies also infringe too, but whether they get this treatment depends on whether an explicit complaint has been made. Most companies however are really just identifying a computer or browser, and whilst some jurisdictions class this in itself as personal data not all do, if France doesn't then it's easy to see why simple cookie tracking doesn't fall under the same laws as tracking people and trying to associate it with clearly identifiable information such as pictures of people, who they know, and so forth. The problem for Facebook is that they're intent on collecting not merely anonymised identifying data, but non-anonymised identifying data. Most ad networks don't really care what your name is, just what you are likely to want to buy. Facebook wants your name, address, telephone number, list of friends and family, and pictures of every moment of your life.

The point of these data protection laws is that people should be able to have a choice to have no association with a company, to have a choice for companies not to hold data on them, and Facebook is clearly ignoring that choice - it's trying to gather data and build profiles on everyone, including people who don't want Facebook to have a profile on them.

Which isn't to say I'm defending the likes of Doubleclick and Google, frankly I hate all tracking and think that the anonymised data used by ad networks isn't and can't ever be anonymised enough such that it should be any more legal without consent. But as it stands this is an evolving area of law in most countries and there's non consistency on whether anonymised (no matter how poorly) data is personal data or not.

I also think it's worth bearing in mind that companies like Facebook are inevitably going to come under more scrutiny because of their tax situations. They use the argument for avoiding corporation tax that they're probably not technically breaking the law because the loopholes they use are in a grey area and aren't explicitly banned. Given that it's not really surprising that authorities decide that if they want to play that game that maybe it's time to examine where they technically are breaking the law and start to enforce it a bit more anally too.

Companies like Facebook can't really complain about having the law enforced against them when they like to make such a fuss about how they're not breaking the law when it comes to things like tax. They really can't have it both ways - expect the law to be treated explicitly when it suits them in exploiting a loophole, but not expect it to be treated explicitly arguing over-reach when they're actually in breach of it elsewhere. Either you have a view that the law should be treated explicitly as written in which case they really need to accept their guilt here and do the necessary, or you believe that the law can't ever cover every edge case and believe there should be some leeway allowing people to foll

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[aliquis]

Why care about Facebook anyway?

* It clearly doesn't care about privacy.
* It have no consistent behavior for what it allows and not (report one post/group once and it likely remain, have lots of people do it and it's removed.)
* It don't provide much freedom and don't act as an enabling medium for expressing your opinion and hence does not help with the lack of freedom of speech in Europe.
* It's run by a migration activist who want to fight Europeans who want to have their people, culture, society and self-rule intact and protect themselves against foreign invasion.

Sure it has better coverage but it's only coverage of politically correct content so that's a negative.

I use Twitter because the freedom is much greater there.
I would had wanted complete freedom of speech and less government and full anonymity though.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arbitrary rulings from the EU and multiple EU countries against US internet companies have been cropping up for years.

Can you name an example?

The top EU court tried to ruin the internet recently by stating that, since the US spies on people, the legal agreement letting US internet companies to move user data to, you know, places other than Europe (gasp!) was invalid because they might give that data to the US to spy on people. This ruling threatened to cut off how the internet works and was perfectly reasonable...

The ruling merely stated that companies are not allowed to violate customers' rights by storing their data in a jurisdiction where their privacy cannot be guaranteed.

Well, nevermind that the UK does the same spying that is apparently illegal for the US to do, but gets no mention of punishment. Or that France and Germany do the exact same thing as well.

It is not a matter of punishing. It is a matter of uphulding the law.

throws protectionist legal trantrums some more

Protectionism in Europe is nowhere near as bad as it is in the U.S. Some are explicit (like the Buy American Act, the Jones Act and lots of tariffs); others are more implicit, like having standards and units differing from the rest of the world in arbitrary ways to set entrance barriers.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is quite bad, but what Facebook knows is a pale shadow of what Google knows. Facebook has their "like buttons" sprinkled all around the web, though easily blocked, but Google is embedded so far into the fabric of the modern web that they know for all practical purposes everything you have ever done, seen, bought, read, written, where you are in real time throughout the day, and much, much more.. Employers store their documents on Google drive, and sign you up for gmail accounts when you accept jobs, without your consent. Every web site under the sun loads required captchas from Google, who now knows your identities on every web forum.

Facebook is really bad. Google is 50X worse.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Teun]

Maybe you should read up on the meaning of 'Arbitrary'.
I have some understanding for animosities between the worlds economic powers but within a place we're all supposed to follow the same rules.
Well that is at least expected in democracies.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but it doesn't have my name, address, telephone number, date of birth, bank details, credit history and so on and so forth, which is really what data protection laws cover.

Rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter that Google knows I was looking to buy something or other on a specific date - it has a hell of a profile on what I've bought, watched, read, but it still doesn't know my name, where I live, or how to contact me, because I haven't given it permission. I'm a nameless profile of shopping and browsing habits. Could it be tied back to me with some effort? potentially, but it's not guaranteed and would have a fairly high false positive rate so as to not be an awful lot of use. Certainly if you willingly give Google all those details then it can indeed build a broader profile than Facebook.

Facebook however, illegal acquires this data, because other people have given it my name because it allows that, and tagged their location at my address, installed the Facebook app on their phone where it harvests their contacts of which one is mine with my name and phone number and so on, and so forth.

Facebook could solve this problem easily - just ban tagging of non-Facebook members, stop harvesting data it's not legally entitled to from people's phones and so forth.

When I was a member of Facebook I remember seeing that it asks you to confirm your phone number. I never filled this in and ignored it for years. I then installed the app one day and logged in to the web page and saw this confirmation box pre-populated with my phone number that it had stolen and uploaded via the app. This is an example of an illegal practice, I never gave consent for it to take my phone number and upload it to their servers (installing an app is not sufficient consent by law) and yet there it was, for it to be pre-populated on a different computer it was being stored server side and asking me to confirm it (which would be consent). The whole design of it was such that it takes it without consent and then asks you to consent that it's already taken and stored it.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[silentcoder]

Except of course that most of the other companies he mentioned are also... *gasp* US companies.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[silentcoder]

Of course, America only accepts that one way.
One of the biggest news stories here in South Africa over the past few months was the strong possibility that AGOA would not be renewed. AGOA is a law Obama signed to help African economies grow by giving them tax-free imports into the US. A good idea in principle - but, as always, good ideas get corrupted when US corporations get involved. AGOA is now *also* used to blackmail African countries to change laws that have nothing to do with competitiveness for American exporters. In South Africa's case, the threat is that AGOA would not be renewed unless we agree to no longer require sanitary standards for chicken. Our own chicken farmers have been living with these standards for years and sell chicken quite competitively but US chicken is notoriously low quality and notoriously high risk for disease spreading - risks that are amplified by exporting, and they come nowhere near the (common sense) standards we've had for decades to prevent outbreaks of diseases like Salmonella.

So US sourced chicken has been very rare in our stores since so few US chicken exporters complied with the regulations. This safety law will probably be lost, to secure US companies the ability to export here - because we cannot afford to lose the cheap export markets to the US (that's a pretty significant percentage of our GDP).
Despite most South Africans pragmatically accepting the laxer standards as something we simply have to do - nobody is happy about it, South Africans right now feel extremely bullied by America and feel that our public health is being traded for American profits.

The grand irony: laws or no laws, we have a thriving industrial scale chicken farming industry (which is a nett exporter) - there is almost no way that American companies could compete anyway since local farmers don't have expensive international shipping to pay for. Only a few truly massive factory-farm companies may even bother to enter the market, where they won't sell well because of being more expensive- so American companies are deluded if they think they will actually GET profit from this - but local chicken will also go down in quality if the standards are relaxed.
It's a nett harm for South African consumers - of a meat product that is dietary stable (and often the only proteine source) for the most poor and vulnerable people in our country. And the people who demanded it, will make only a tiny bit of money from it. The only thing that pisses somebody off more than being killed so a billionaire can make another billion - is being killed so a billionaire can make another penny.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[silentcoder]

>hence does not help with the lack of freedom of speech in Europe.

Aaah, American Exceptionalism at work -the average European citizen has for more, and more practical capacity to make use of, freedom of speech than the US does. Talk to me again when you can watch golden-shower fetish porn on national TV at 1pm in the Afternoon in America ! A few places ban specific forms of hatespeech - but so does the US (just not quite as stringently) and I would never be convinced that hatespeech against a minority is legitimate free speech anyway. All hatespeech IS incitement to violence. No, there is not an exception to that, even if you don't say the words "kill the" they are ALWAYS in the sentence before the racial slur. Somebody WILL hear them there and nobody says it without already know that.

Re: how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn on national TV is not,freedom of,speech, it's government propaganda.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The French laws are toothless. If active cookies are banned, then there is always browser fingerprinting, which is passive, and isn't considered "tracking". Additionally, Facebook could call it a DRM mechanism, enable EME, and since the WIPO treaty trumps French law, FB would be completely off the hook.

Realistically, what can France do? Hell, even the US congress lost a battle of wits with the pharma CE-Bro... what can France do against a billion dollar company that knows French laws and loopholes (or can pay for that) more than the lawmakers themselves? Maybe call another Google rep on the carpet for an EU show trial and do some token fine, perhaps.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

t it still doesn't know my name, where I live, or how to contact me

Oh, I bet it does! They use a wide variety of very sophisticated techniques for determining personal identities even if you haven't directly given it to them. It's a bit like how Facebook has a profile for people who never signed up for Facebook.

If you have an Android phone (not saying you do - just hypothetical, since a large number of people do) then they not only know where you live, they know where you are at each moment of the day. How long you spent at your girlfriend's house last night. Where you work. Which doctor you go to. Whether you just went to see a psychologist. When you are asleep and when you are awake.

Even if you don't have an Android phone, they almost certainly still know who you are, everything you do on the net, and where you live. Maybe not as much about your movement throughout the day, though.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[KermodeBear]

But unless servers are hosted inside of France, does French law really apply? Can it be enforced? They can levy all the fines they want, but unless Facebook exists as an entity inside of that country, does that country really have any jurisdiction?

I run a few sites hosted in the US and I know that they would violate laws of Saudi Arabia. Can they come sue me?

Many porn sites show nipples and the tips of penises. Can they be sued by Japan, who demands such things be covered by little black boxes?

If a local town here in the US were to pass a law saying, I don't know, that you must pay a Website Tax in order to operate a website, then can they try to collect that tax from any website they access from the town?

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling merely stated that companies are not allowed to violate customers' rights by storing their data in a jurisdiction where their privacy cannot be guaranteed.

Did it even go that far?

The ruling was the the agreement that the NSA etc. will not have access to those data was null and void by actions of the US government.

And since that agreement was the only thing allowing companies to move data to the US in the first place, they would have to start following existing law. Like all agreements, if the agreement is void, we fall back to the law.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter that Google knows I was looking to buy something or other on a specific date - it has a hell of a profile on what I've bought, watched, read, but it still doesn't know my name, where I live, or how to contact me, because I haven't given it permission.

Except that you often have. Check the small print the next time you order something online, and you'll see the part where they share the information with other "business partners".

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[MitchDev]

Dear Facebook, just cut french users off until they pressure their government to get real.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Facebook wants to operate in France and provide services to French citizens, then it is subject to French law.

It is welcome to stop doing business in France, in which case it will no longer be subject to French law.

Re: how about other third-party tracking?

[silentcoder]

What policy exactly are they promoting except perhaps "good fucking is fun" - in which case thats just one more way their society is more free than America.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[AmiMoJo]

This has nothing to do with tracking. The unfair terms that they are objecting to are the bit in the TOS that says they can unilaterally change the TOS any time they like and users can't do anything about it.

Keep in mind that you can't ever delete your Facebook account, so if you object to a change you can't stop them applying it to your data by closing your account and terminating your relationship with them.

Re: how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn on national TV is not,freedom of,speech, it's government propaganda.

Propaganda for what? Oh, right, it's in contradiction to the bullshit line which says "sex is evil and the work of the devil", and therefore it's "propaganda".

Sorry, but religious hand-wringing and moralizing telling you what you can't do isn't freedom of speech. It's religion trying to limit what's your freedom of speech.

It's not god who is a whiny douchebag, it's you.

Americans pay lip service to freedom of speech, but they don't actually know what it means, because everything has to be filtered the puritan lens which forever makes Americans morons.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Nidi62]

The grand irony: laws or no laws, we have a thriving industrial scale chicken farming industry (which is a nett exporter) - there is almost no way that American companies could compete anyway since local farmers don't have expensive international shipping to pay for. Only a few truly massive factory-farm companies may even bother to enter the market, where they won't sell well because of being more expensive- so American companies are deluded if they think they will actually GET profit from this - but local chicken will also go down in quality if the standards are relaxed.

You aren't looking far enough ahead. It is very likely that the American companies will ship over and sell their chicken at a loss but still priced so low that it starts to drive local producers out of business. Then they can either jack up their imported prices or, and this I think is more likely, set up their own subsidiary locally which will still produce chicken at a higher price. So long term you will see not only lower quality but also more expensive product, with most of the profits going overseas instead of staying local.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Google doesn't know EXACTLY who you are?

Guess again my friend.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Opportunist]

So you say, what's on the internet stays on the internet?

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[HydrusZ]

Facebook however, illegal acquires this data, because other people have given it my name because it allows that, and tagged their location at my address, installed the Facebook app on their phone where it harvests their contacts of which one is mine with my name and phone number and so on, and so forth.

Facebook could solve this problem easily - just ban tagging of non-Facebook members, stop harvesting data it's not legally entitled to from people's phones and so forth.

The Facebook mobile app does not have access to the device's contacts. Photos yes, location usually, but not contacts.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[AmiMoJo]

Yep, French TV regularly has adverts on during the day with topless women. Europe is much less up tight about such things and thus much more liberal than US broadcasting rules.

Europe and the US have different kinds of freedom. The US has a little less government interference, the EU has a lot more guarantees. You can't really compare them numerically, only state a preference for one or the other type.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear France, just cut facebook users off until they pressure facebook to get real.
FTFY.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also add to that the fact that some time in our history data of people was misused by a totalitarian regime.

In my country the catholic church for example, collected data from people whose kids went to a catholic school. The religion, profession, political orientation etc were collected. When a neighboring country invaded our country, the first thing the occupier did was to use this data to identify people who were potential enemies (political orientation) and who were considered enemies (a particular religion). Many people were killed because of their thoughts or religion in execution camps (about 6% of the population).

After the war one of the first things the new government did was to forbid this kind of data collection by any organization (including the state). The privacy laws still exist and there is still a strong feeling to not relax these laws. Many people still support this law. Americans don't seem to understand this feeling, especially companies don't even seem to respect the wish of people who don't want their data to be collected. There is a strong feeling that this data can fall in the hands of the wrong people and that it is not a question of if but of when.

Re: how about other third-party tracking?

[silentcoder]

I wish you were wrong

Re: how about other third-party tracking?

[Nidi62]

I wish you were wrong

Speaking as an American, so do I.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[KermodeBear]

How does it "stop doing business in France", except by attempting to block IP addresses that originate from France? What do you do when someone uses a proxy or VPN to access Facebook? Who is at fault then? How can you enforce that? Does France plan to build their own Great Firewall?

What does "doing business in France" even mean? The servers are located in other countries.

Again, if I have a blog up somewhere that violates a law in France, with the server hosted in Botswana, how can I be fined for "doing business" especially when there's no monetary action between my site and the visitor?

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[tlhIngan]

For example Doubleclick and those kinds of networks track me across the web even if I've never signed up for an account with them or otherwise accepted their ToS.

Are you sure? I mean, you probably did, probably for GMail or YouTube or some other Google thing. Or an Android phone.

I know Google loves to hide the fact that they own the majority of ad networks out there so everyone THINKS they only do the text ads, but no, Google owns the major ad networks like DoubleClick (they acquired them so many years ago it may even be when /. was "better").

You probably did accept DoubleClick and many other ToS by simply having and using a Google account (and didn't Google a few years ago unify their ToS across everything?)/.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Eunuchswear]

They can levy all the fines they want, but unless Facebook exists as an entity inside of that country, does that country really have any jurisdiction?

http://www.societe.com/societe/facebook-france-530085802.html

FACEBOOK FRANCE
Société : 530085802

108 AVENUE DE WAGRAM
75017 PARIS
FRANCE

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Coren22]

You replied to someone discussing this from TFS:

After Mondays decision by the French CNIL (National Center for Computers and Freedom) that Facebook must stop tracking non-users,

The French have an issue with FBs tracking (likely through the Like button used all over the web), they also have issues with the TOS, which likely also apply to have the internet, likely including many French web sites. But it is fashionable to attack American companies right now...

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The public can still boycott inferior American chicken.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[ihtoit]

Sure, I'll buy that, yeah , alrightythen.

Re:how about other third-party tracking?

[aliquis]

Regarding the first one that seem to cover person to person poor behavior rather than the wrong opinions at large.

Second one doesn't mention what I do ("racism", "hatred", anti-immigration, anti-authority, anti-media, blasphemy, ridiculing feminism, ridiculing Islam, ridiculing socialism, ..)

Regarding the third one I'm from Sweden, 0.

Four isn't my problem either, but sure. If it's not stolen pictures I don't see why though. If they are used as ads and that's not allowed then fine. I get such followers every now and then but I don't care that much.

Fifth - I don't really care, normal copyright. If someone wanted to provide some of their own content by making a reflection about something someone else did I think that should be allowed though. But just stealing content? What's the problem?

Sixth, fine, when it happens me. So far 43 500 posts, none removed, account not banned, no questions, nothing.
On Facebook half of it would be removed, they would try to figure out who I was and they would had locked down my account.

be respocible, don't expect govs to protect you

[sittingnut]

all this is good, but ultimately it is up to each one of us to protect ourselves.
we knew facebook( and other big techs) is abusive and intrusive. but most consumers do not care. and that means govs do not care eventually, especially if they get to be abusive and intrusive through facebook.
if some thing is abusive and intrusive, do not use it for anything worthwhile. if most people do that, facebooks of the world will leave off . but if most people prefer being lazy and pampered by govs, to being private, then we deserve what we get.

Re:be respocible, don't expect govs to protect you

[Anonymous Coward]

> all this is good, but ultimately it is up to each one of us to protect ourselves.

It ain't as easy. It's rather up to each one of us to protect each other. Without some kind of solidarity it won't work. You gotta fight for your vision, but you gotta try to convince your co-humans that it's worth fighting for. That's messy politics. Sorry, that's the way it is.

> if some thing is abusive and intrusive, do not use it for anything worthwhile.

That's what I do: I use alternative search engines, I never touched Facebook & Twitter (it helps that I castrated my browser to not evaluate *any* javascript and to reject cookies, although browser "vendors", even those calling themselves "free" are making that more and more difficult at each time).

But it doesn't help *a bit* if I'm the only one doing that. I'll have to talk to others, explain *and listen*, accept that each other has a slightly different standpoint and evolve/keep mine while helping others evolve/keep theirs.

What the French administration is doing is invaluable, not because it slaps Facebook in the wrist (they'll survive that), but because it raises awareness and gives (hopefully!) people the possibility of a more informed choice.

Now it's your turn to tell people "you think Facebook bad? Well, betcha you don't know what this little crappy app which came with your Adidas fitness wristband is doing behind your back. Lemme tell you..."

Re:be respocible, don't expect govs to protect you

[Anonymous Coward]

> all this is good, but ultimately it is up to each one of us to protect ourselves.

True, but perhaps not enough. I'd tend to argue that when you create a personal page on a big site, then that is still your IP, and the site can only use it through your continuing consent. If you yank that consent, they must delete it and any backup copies. That doesn't really keep people from saving off copies, but it is still your IP. They have no right to take that data and repost it. This would also mean that a third party site couldn't just cache all content forever for searching, since they would not have the right to that IP. Of course, if you choose to surrender that right, you are welcome to do so, but that kind of thing should be opt in only, and not part of a standard TOS.

Of course, when you create a personal account to contribute to online threads and such that are public facing, then removing or editing your content would be directly affecting the larger work of the site, and should not be as easy to do, though should still be possible, particularly if it was say in the last hour or something. I'd also encourage the use of pseudonyms and such then so as to keep some privacy and not have a comment haunt future employment prospects.

For those who don't speak the language

[xushi]

not speaking is not the same as not reading...

Re: For those who don't speak the language

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't speak English very well.

Re:For those who don't speak the language

[wonkey_monkey]

I'm a mute polyglot, you insensitive clod!

Re:For those who don't speak the language

[Alumoi]

I'm a bilingual illiterate, moron. I can't read in 2 languages.

Re:For those who don't speak the language

[silentcoder]

That's nothing, I can't write in at least 17 languages !

Re:For those who don't speak the language

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why they pay you to CodE RevIeW JavA.

You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that there are many, many trackers on the web; many of them are not visible to end users *at all*. But you have to start somewhere. Besides, Facebook has way more data than any of them because not only can they assign a unique ID to you and make inferences based on your browsing habits, they know exactly who you are, your name, who your friends and enemies are, your politics, sexual preferences... basically everything. Even if you don't have an account they've got this data because your friends tag you in photos.

Furthermore, Facebook gives you privacy settings, but how they behave are less than obvious... your pictures can be found by anybody with the link, for example. Facebook reserves the right to change your privacy settings without notifying you first. This is clearly illegal in Europe: just because there is a EULA does not mean that visitors waive their rights under European law.

Most importantly, to me anyway, is that in Europe you can request that firms delete data that they have on you. Facebook does not do this. They simply flag an account as "deleted", but they keep it. Try it yourself if you dare: delete your account, wait a couple of weeks, and create a new one. Without doing anything, all of your old "friends" will pop up in the friend suggestions... because they already know who they are.

I had a FB profile for a couple of weeks in 2008 or so, and "deleted" it. I regret that deeply because I have no way of actually deleting it and I know that FB is quietly and automatically collating everything it can on me. I'm Belgian, so at least they can't set their tracking cookie any more, but the issue is still not redressed. I really am grateful to France for fighting the good fight on this one.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[drinkypoo]

Try it yourself if you dare: delete your account, wait a couple of weeks, and create a new one. Without doing anything, all of your old "friends" will pop up in the friend suggestions... because they already know who they are.

You know, while you're correct about what they're doing, this doesn't prove anything at all. All they have to do is keep a record of your email address as a past friend on everyone else's accounts. Then they could completely scrub your account, and this would still happen.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we start with "Fuck off France"?

It's really interesting, the levels to which Europe is currently trying to impose their laws on the rest of the world. Who do they think they are, imposing their laws on everyone, the U.S. or something?

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Applehu Akbar]

How about we start with "Fuck off France"?

It's really interesting, the levels to which Europe is currently trying to impose their laws on the rest of the world. Who do they think they are, imposing their laws on everyone, the U.S. or something?

European police agencies are in an arms race with the US in global law enforcement. It's regrettable that Thailand has underage prostitutes, but that is Thailand's problem. Where in the Constitution does it say that this justifies having the FBI police Asian countries?

Re: You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? I'm ready to stand and l cheer on my train ride to work that the French government is ready to rein in abusive data collection practices and actually defend their citizens. More governments should remember when they exist. Hopefully some of the constraints they enforce will eventually help us all

Re:You have to start somewhere

[MitchDev]

No mod points currently, this needs to be +5

Re:You have to start somewhere

[moronoxyd]

"impose their laws on the rest of the world"?

Facebook is providing services to the French people. So they have to abide by French law.

If you want to talk about countries pushing their laws on others just have a look at the DMCA. This is a US law, yet it seems to be in effect everywhere around the world.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a simpler solution then what you've proposed and it's to run Noscript (Palemoon/FF) in white list mode - Deny All by default. Start there and you block the god damn scripts that FB/DblClk and many of the other trackers use to track.

If you're technically inclined, google "free hosts file" and go through it. Very useful as it not only helps block most of the damn advertisers but much of the known malware vectors by the simple expedient that your system does not ever connect to them. Of course, this assumes you weren't infected by Windows 10, where you can't replace the hosts file.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[budgenator]

Well what happens if Facebook decides to decline doing business with the French citizens and France?

  As far as US law being applied everywhere, perhaps your politicians have signed a treaty you're not aware of, and and would rather have you blame the US for extra-territorial enforcement than except responsibility for negotiating a treaty that may not reflect your view of what your best interests are.

Politicians are sneaky weasels, you have to keep a microscope up their ass or they'll do things you don't like.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have to do is keep a record of your email address as a past friend on everyone else's accounts. Then they could completely scrub your account, and this would still happen.

The law is that they have to delete all data that they have on me. So even if they deleted my account (which they don't, but I've no time to dig that up right now), what you are describing is _still_ illegal.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[ravenshrike]

Except they're not imposing their laws on the rest of the world. Just the US. Otherwise they would be doing this shit to every single Russian and Chinese company with a major presence in the online world.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Eunuchswear]

Well what happens if Facebook decides to decline doing business with the French citizens and France?

Facebook loses a fuckton of money.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to lose money?

1: Social media buttons that track web pages still gain info, like it or not.
2: Shadow profiles are still out there.
3: French people and companies can still pay for FB ads.

If France "bans" FB, then what will change? Nothing. All it means is that servers with all the info will be in some other country, well out of France's grasp. Only thing France can do is do a Great Firewall... and that isn't exactly something that will sit well in the most civilized and free country on earth (well, so the French think.)

Re:You have to start somewhere

[budgenator]

Isn't Zuckerburg supposedly give the annual GNP of an embarrassing number of countries away to charity? I'm not sure how motivated by money facebook is anymore.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really interesting, the levels to which Europe is currently trying to impose their laws on the rest of the world. Who do they think they are, imposing their laws on everyone, the U.S. or something?

Imposing laws on the rest of the world? Nope. If they want to operate in France, they obey french law. The can take that or leave it - either way, they can be non-compliant in the rest of the world. Including the rest of Europe.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to lose money?

1: Social media buttons that track web pages still gain info, like it or not.

And France has the option of blocking those buttons - or even the sites deploying them . . .

Re:You have to start somewhere

[Eunuchswear]

The GP asked "what happens if Facebook decides to decline doing business with the French citizens and France?". If Facebook declines to do business with French citizens then how can "French people and companies can still pay for FB ads". That's where Facebook loses money. Nobody likes losing money.

Why do people imagine that where the servers are is important? It's where facebook does business that's important.

Re:You have to start somewhere

[drinkypoo]

The law is that they have to delete all data that they have on me. So even if they deleted my account (which they don't, but I've no time to dig that up right now), what you are describing is _still_ illegal.

If the user has ever put your address in anywhere deliberately, it probably isn't.

Hey Windows 10

[Anonymous Coward]

When will EU inspect the datamining that Windows 10 does?

Re:Hey Windows 10

[dr.Flake]

Just wait for it.

The level of information gathering is beyond acceptable for European standards. Major companies will fear sensitive data will end up via NSA with competitors. They will complain, action will follow.

patience is a virtue, till then, don't use Windows 10 in your organisation.

Re:Hey Windows 10

[Teun]

A very valid and interesting question, regretfully Nellie Kroes, the old EU commissioner responsible, found another job...

Re:Hey Windows 10

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Major companies will fear sensitive data will end up via NSA with competitors. They will complain, action will follow.

They know it _will_ end up in government hands. They remember well the record keeping used against those with unpopular political or religious beliefs inside the Iron Curtain, before the fall of the Soviet Union and the shift of countries to EU membership. A very few people in the EU are left who can remember the detailed record keeping used to find and discover Jews, gypsies, gays, the handicapped, foreign nationals, Communists, and other Nazi persecuted groups during WW II,

Re:Hey Windows 10

[Anonymous Coward]

why? just because you're a paranoid nutbar?

2nd French Revolution

[Max_W]

The free WWW of URLs and HTML, as it was envisioned by Timothy John Berners-Lee. Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Re:Not just Facebook

[Teun]

You don't need to call each and every company into court, you take one and write a judgement and it will be declared 'jurisprudence' meaning any similar case is judged by the same ruling.
It's for the next court to figure out what 'similar' means.

Ah Facebook, like it values privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, I don't equate Facebook with privacy at all? The reason why its free to end users is how it gathers your information for marketing. Seriously, does nobody read how Zuckerberg and company make millions off of this marketing???

Can it be enforced?

[Anonymous Coward]

French law applies to French citizens and French companies.
France has jurisdiction of any entity based in and operating in its territory.
It's easy for the French government to pass regulations insisting that every French ISP blocks facebook, creating an anti-facebook firewall.
Any country can do the same, and many do.

easy.

Facebook will fold on this issue, give them what they want, it's just a matter of time ...

Geolocalisation

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook should geolocalisation block France then wait...

Don't want to be tracked? You talk to me

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

-

FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers, adds speed, security & reliability.

Does far more w/ far less more efficiently vs. addons (clarityray blockable, redundant + RAM/CPU wasteful & 'souled-out' crippled by default) & local DNS servers @ home.

Fixes DNS' security issues & stops tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have!

(Firewalls do rest on FAR less used IP address trackers/threats vs. host-domain names).

-

Obtains data vs. online threats & ads via 10 reputable security community sites - easily edited by you using my program.

-

SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways:

Adblocking ALL ads + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for faster resolution vs. remote DNS (for reliability + speed) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

-

All via what you already have vs. illogically "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" (clarityray detected/blockable + usermode slow & increased messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads)

-

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

&

MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per a VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

-

* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

APK

P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

"The image this title brings to mind is a mighty military commander who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" -> https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

(Accept NO substitutes)

...apk

So, France will establish ...

[PPH]

... a Maginot Line against Facebook.

just France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now there will be a serious look at international business conglomerates and corporations. I hope.
Maybe now the countries ( UN ? European Union? SEATO? ) will finally say
'Only businesses with headquarters in this country can do business here. If Google, Facebook,
IBM, Bechtel, Lockheed, etc. want to do business here, start a company here.
Open accounting.
Our Laws.'

Too much money being transferred by lawyers and accountants usually indicates a scheme of some sort.