datarequests.orgToday, we take part in the #EDPB stakeholder event on "Pay or Okay" (or PoO 💩 , as we like to say), to discuss on what upcoming guidelines of the EDPB could look like. We are one of the few representatives of civil society against a myriad of different advertising lobbyists and lawyers. If you have any points you would like to be brought up by us, please share those with us! #teamdatenschutz #DataProtection
It should be noted that the #EDPB structured the discussion already in a way that makes it hard to fundamentally oppose PoO, instead we are supposed to argue how it could look like and in what situations it might not be appropriate. This is of course biases framing: We do not think that paying for your fundamental rights should be an option at all.
The German association of digital economy (BVDW) basically argues that PoO is already pervasive and users are already used to it, so why regulate at all? They seem to believe that extorting user is just legal in general as there is already so much jurisprudence (prior court decisions). What they are referring to is just one half sentence in a recent CJEU case, which sparked all of this.
Another argument advertising lawyers really like repeating, is how fundamental rights need to be balanced against each other. So clearly the rights of users to privacy need to be balanced against the right of the company to conduct business (i.e. make money in every way they want), right? Wrong! #HumanRights are not equivalent at all to some company shareholders getting richer. This kind of false balance and "company rights activism" really speaks to how little these people care about us.
Thank you @finnmyrstad for also speaking up clearly that fundamental rights are not for sale and that tracking users is not without alternative.
@finnmyrstad Many stakeholders speaking up for PoO say that setting a fee is a business decision which authorities should have no say over. The regulators, in their mind, should not be able to require a business model. But harmful business models are forbidden in many other sectors, too.
It is really nice to see that other privacy advocates agree that there can not be an appropriate fee on privacy and that tracking is fundamentally harmful. We also seem to agree that we do not speak against the right to access to information, on the contrary. Tracking advocates are ostensibly trying to frame us as confused fundamentalists who are ready to give up everything for privacy. But these rights are connected and only work in unison!
We have been accused that we have no idea how little data tracking companies actually have on individual users. Indeed, the adtech industry is not willing to share how they process data. However we have lots of evidence what data is collected and how that can be and is used to single out users and to try to manipulate behavior. In this we agree: Let’s stick to the science! (How about providing access to algorithms so that there can be actual independent research?)
One argument which came up: Advertising companies want to prevent fraud by publishers (see how they support the media?!) and therefore have to track even if there is no behavioral advertising. However, why should I care about this as a user? The burden of proof is on the tracking companies here: Does tracking really prevent fraud and is it the least invasive way to do that? We highly doubt that.
I have been waiting for this argument to appear: One Tracking proponent argues that small businesses need behavioral advertising to reach their customers. What they are undercutting: Small businesses are extremely dependent on adtech companies if they rely on them to show their ads through real time bidding. However, there is no real reason, why tracking is needed for small busniesses to place ads. This is not about small businesses, this is about revenue streams of advertising companies!
Another threat to users coming up: If you don’t want to "consent" into tracking, adtech will make the ads extremely annoying. They just have no other choice. 🤡 Facebook recently threatened this (https://noyb.eu/en/ads-meta-wants-be-less-illegal-much-more-annoying), now it is also coming up here. To me, this reaks of a dark pattern, which should be thoroughly investigated.
The BVDW fittingly summarizes their position. OH: "Privacy first? No. Not in the current situation."
I would suggest they read the #GDPR again.
I would suggest they read the #GDPR again.
@finnmyrstad also puts it fittingly: The industry seems to be quite afraid of innovation. Funny, as this is what they generally can not stop talking about.
To summarize: Industry actors for the most part do not seem to care much at all about privacy. Unsurprisingly, they argue behavioral advertising is essential to their business model and that regulators should keep out. They kept repeating the libertarian idea that the freedom to conduct business should not be impeded by the fundamental right to privacy. In the short summaries of the #EDPB at the end, sadly positions from civil society were hard to find.
No wonder, as the large majority of participants were from the industry, many of them full-time payed to prepare for this event. Arguing against this is exhaustingly hard, but it gets much easier if you are not alone. Thanks to @finnmyrstad, @CenDemTech Politiscope, Digital Rights Ireland, @noybeu and others for being a strong voice against tracking! #TeamDatenschutz
ulif@datarequestsorg Thank you @datarequestsorg for this most interesting report and your fight for #privacy, #dataProtection and against PoO!
Benjamin Altpeter@datarequestsorg And if these criteria are met, what do they even need consent for? That’s what legitimate interest is for!