Most of this thread is filled with toxic, logically fallible attacks, which is why I avoided commenting earlier. I decided, however, to create a throwaway to respond to this. Anyone in this thread who is willing to step back and actually look at the facts, this message is for you.
Facebook takes the GDPR very seriously. I know this, because I know some of the people who worked on compliance. Facebook has lawyers who have studied the law. Facebook has worked with the EU to ensure compliance. Facebook publishes online the steps necessary to access your data, the list of uses of that data, and even a form for special requests. You may ask, then, how I reconcile that statement with the website posted here?
Well, take a moment to actually read the linked website. The writer made a request for their data, and was disappointed when Facebook complied, and gave them access to all of the data that they had on him.
The writer then asks for this specifically: access to their own data, how it's processed, and some minutiae around the processing. The user already has access to their own data, and the additional information requested is already publicly available.
The writer uses email and a special request form in order to make this request, and becomes irate when the special request takes longer than he would like.
Facebook then politely sends the writer an explanation of all of this, at which point the writer starts harassing the customer service agents who are helping him. He then researches ways that he can personally harass members of Facebook's team. He sends an email not just demanding his data, but requesting the raw data from Facebook's servers.
Facebook's response is still quite polite and factual. They have already delivered all of his data to hime, as well as all of the descriptions requested. They point out the timeline of events. They then explain that despite his request, the GDPR does not cover raw server dumps, a fact which has been proven in court.
Finally, the writer creates a defamatory website and posts it to Hacker News.
So no, sir, this event does not make me question my morals.
From Facebook's email: "We use location-related information – such as your current location, where you live, the places you like to go, and the businesses and people you’re near (..)"
From their Help page on the data downloaded in the "Your Information", the only locations included are "The last location associated with an update."
How can you possibly claim they "gave them access to all of the data that they had on him"? FB itself denies this claim.
This comes off like you're mainly trying to justify your moral views to yourself.
How do you figure "the user already has access to their own data" when the author never received their explicitly requested location/device/wireless history (which FB definitely has)?
Does the GDPR only apply to publicly available data? I was under the impression the company was obligated to give the user everything, public and private.
I concur, this sounds more like someone trying to convince themselves that their morals are still intact and justify their decision. Certainly not changing my point of view.
I guess drinking too much of the KoolAid does this to... maybe thats why all the big co's have so many KoolAid drinking sessions. :)
its not a single event that should, its the overarching point of view from your CEO and such, along with a long list of violations that should make you question you morals.
