
The Next Privacy Battle in Europe Is Over the Proposed ePrivacy Regulation - rgbrenner
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/technology/europe-eprivacy-regulation-battle.html
======
ryanworl
[https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/Draft-ePriv-
Reg-M...](https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/Draft-ePriv-Reg-
May-2018.pdf)

Here is the most recent draft if anyone wants to read it.

Just to start a bit of a discussion, I read prior drafts and this one is
_MUCH_ better than previous drafts. Before very simple things like placing
cookies for basic analytics, fraud detection, DDoS prevention, etc. were in a
grey area. Now they are explicitly allowed by this draft.

If prior versions would've passed as-is, I would be legitimately worried for
the future of tech in Europe, but this seems quite similar to GDPR now.

------
probably_wrong
After seeing that "App-ocalypse" video, I realised: the intersection between
"people that like the new privacy law" and "people who can make a cool video"
is probably much smaller than the intersection with people who don't like the
new privacy law. EA (say) can probably make a much more effective campaign
than (say) Stallman.

This worries me in this case in particular, but it's a worry in general: how
to reach audiences outside the science/tech sphere. Not many programmers want
to be Youtubers, but that seems to be the only reasonable choice.

------
mikestew
_" And requiring companies to provide equal communications services to people
who opt out of data mining, they say, could cause sites or apps that rely on
data-driven advertising to start charging fees or close down."_

This statement starts with the assumption that the data mining was okay in the
first place. My metaphor is a bit hyperbolic, but it's like members of
organized crime complaining about the passage of RICO in the U. S. "Well,
_now_ how are supposed to make a living?" Mmm, you weren't supposed to be
making a living through organized crime in the first place.

~~~
d1zzy
Let's not get hyperbolic and compare data mining to murder.

If you think it's not OK that's your opinion, but do a survey among regular
folk of "is it OK to have web sites mine your data to provide you with
targeted ads and free services like search, maps, email or you wish to pay $5
a month" and see the results. Make sure to include there people from all walks
of life and age and all over the world.

Personally I like having choices. Data mining should be just another mechanism
to pay for the services provided. I know for a fact that if these companies
didn't have "data mining" as a mechanism to provide otherwise free services I
would have never used those free services for the past 15 years or so, growing
up in a country where electronic payments were available much later and the
per capita yearly income was super low.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The problem here is that we don't have choices. Usually it's "accept our data
mining or don't use our service". And since a lot of tech companies operate
walled garden monopolies these days, that is not, in actuality, a choice.

If someone was pushing a law that required all companies implementing data
mining/tracking to have a paid version that could not exceed the value they
gain from that tracking, I'd be fine with that. I assume it'd be pennies in
most cases considering your Facebook account is really only worth like $12 a
year to Facebook.

~~~
jfim
> I assume it'd be pennies in most cases considering your Facebook account is
> really only worth like $12 a year to Facebook.

Facebook quarterly ARPU was USD$26.76 for US/Canada and USD$8.86 in Europe in
Q4 2017. I'm also guessing that people willing to pay for Facebook are more
likely to be a high value demographic, and would conversely need to pay more
than the average user for that region.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It would presumably need to be illegal to price people based on their
willingness to pay for the service.

------
sqdbps
"The bill also requires companies to offer people the same communications
services whether or not they agree to have their data collected."

This is the most insane part of this clueless and destructive law.

It's like europe has resigned to the notion that they don't have a significant
internet company so they are determined to destroy the whole industry. They
don't seem to be as petty or as prolific in churning out regulations and
limitations on other industries.

~~~
Latty
Or maybe people have realised this business model is dangerous and damaging
and we are better off going to alternatives?

Companies can simply start charging for services rather than selling data in
the EU, if it's really that bad.

Personally, as a British person, I fear companies doing bad things far more
than I fear the government overstepping with regulation. People have been
making these same claims about regulation destroying industries for some time,
and it never actually happens.

Instead, most of the time they actually end up being good.

~~~
sqdbps
They don't 'sell data' they show you ads based on relevant data, it's a
deliberate mistake that defeats the argument.

The major issue here is that user consent won't be sufficient anymore, I don't
mind the business model in question and I'm not alone so let us have it, and
those who won't consent they're free to take their business elsewhere. This
degree of micro managing the industry is unprecedented in a supposed free
market system, and ad targeting is far from only benefit to the data, it's
just potential killing legislation.

~~~
dmitriid
> They don't 'sell data' they show you ads based on relevant data

What they do to show these ads is to sell your data, wholesale.

~~~
xxpor
Which isn't even close to being the same thing.

~~~
dmitriid
They literally send your data to an exchange where the highest bidder wins the
right to display an ad.

------
ocdtrekkie
Now that GDPR hysteria has passed, the Internet has survived, and we're all
still here, it's time to start ePrivacy hysteria.

The sheer number of lobbying groups each of these tech companies is involved
in is amazing. Google doesn't seem to publish an EU counterpart to this that I
know of, but here's how many organizations Google is backing:
[https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html](https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html)

~~~
rgbrenner
hysteria? Google, Facebook, et al had billions of dollars worth of complaints
filed against them the first day it took effect.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154175](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17154175)

And those same groups filed against LinkedIn, Apple, and Amazon too:
[https://www.zdnet.com/article/gdpr-attacks-first-google-
face...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/gdpr-attacks-first-google-facebook-now-
activists-go-after-apple-amazon-linkedin/)

It sounds to me like the critics of the law were right. Instapaper pulling out
before it took affect was a good move if they weren't ready. The cases were
filed minutes after the law took affect.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
As Google and Facebook's entire business models are built on invading your
privacy, which both the UN and the EU classify as a violation of fundamental
human rights, is it wrong that they are receiving complaints as soon as it is
legal to file them?

UN, Article 12: [http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/](http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

EU, Article 8: [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:120...](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT)

------
starbugs
Is it maybe finally time to get a real business model?

As with any regulation, there are issues which need to be sorted out. But one
thing is crystal clear to me: this helps making people aware of what is
happening to their data and their lifes. There is no excuse for not being able
to come up with a viable business model without productizing users and making
them subject to social and political manipulation.

I wonder why no one writes about how products could use GDPR and other
regulations to their advantage instead of whining about the demise of the ad
industry.

~~~
zerostar07
> There is no excuse for not being able to come up with a viable business
> model without productizing users and making them subject to social and
> political manipulation.

How so? TV and media have been doing it since forever - not as efficient but
still. It's a valid model if you want open, pluralistic services.

~~~
starbugs
If old media advertising is so great, then why is it necessary to collect more
and more data about individuals, up to the point where you can target them
personally? Would you call TV advertising a productization of the consumer?

Why do e.g. FB not offer a level of service that is viable without personally
identifiable information being used for targeting?

There seems to be a BIG difference in the effectiveness and mechanisms of
statistical target groups vs. individual targeting. If you've followed the
Cambridge Analytica scandal, you know to what degree this information can be
abused.

~~~
zerostar07
I agree that there have to be limits , but it's not an 0/1 question. Facebook
should even be treated as a special case because it's a monopoly, but again
it's not 0/1\. I doubt they can offer the same service without targetting -
facebook makes $100+ from each user in US or western europe. If they made 10%
of that they couldn't offer to e.g. store all your photos and vids for free.

And lets not kid ourselves, very few people would pay $100+ for facebook, even
though it would be interesting to see them offer that option.

~~~
starbugs
But people already pay that money (on average), just not directly to FB.

If I need to lure users into using my platform by pretending to be "free" so I
can get a monopoly going, then that just underlines my point of a non-viable
business model.

~~~
zerostar07
> If I need to lure users into using my platform by pretending to be "free" so
> I can get a monopoly going

You just described every startup in SV, but in any case facebook did not have
ads platform in its growth phase.

------
zerostar07
> The bill also requires companies to offer people the same communications
> services whether or not they agree to have their data collected

Again with this madness. Please convince me how this does not violate the
right of people to come into contracts with each other? The internet is not a
private space as the EU's lawmakers seem to want it to be, but a public space
like the real world. If you want privacy, you buy a house, and similarly you
get a subscription service online. I appreciate that everyone is sensitive
with their privacy these months, but please try to be rational. FWIW, as an EU
citizen i am sometimes offended by the stupidity of our lawmakers.

~~~
eveningcoffee
This is not madness. Many (if not all) EU countries have a law that regulates
contracts. One principle is that the one in the weaker position in the
contract should have some protections.

This can be seen as an extension to such a law.

It appears that consumers are in the weaker position in the contract here
because major ISP can in (silent) agreement to refuse to provide a fair
contracts. For example they are in such position because majority of consumers
do not care.

~~~
zerostar07
In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. Thats legitimate - the government should
interfere to make sure there are options. This doesnt make the law right
though because then

> they are in such position because majority of consumers do not care

is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state.

~~~
eveningcoffee
> _In europe ISPs dont have monopolies._

Usually no, but regardless it does not mean that they could not cooperate to
create unfriendly environment without any real options.

Let me give you a simple example. Let say company X and Y are providing
service Z.

For this service alone profit for company X is $1 per customer and $2 for
company Y.

If they sold the information about their customers then their profit would be
$11 and $12 accordingly.

Now would either of companies get any competitive advantage from not selling
customer data?

> _is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state._

No. These kind of laws do not care about the idiots. They care about the rest
of us.

We should be not forced into position where the options are the following:

1) €20, 100 Mbs, full tracking, 2) €20, 20 Mbs, no tracking.

This law states that the consumers should be not forced into a position where
they have to compare products by tracking.

If it still did not click for you then here is an analogy. Customers should be
not forced to choose between products

1) €12, totally safe, 2) €10, kills you maybe.

It is not ethical.

