Ireland fines Meta $414m for using personal data without asking A legal saga between Meta, Ireland and the European Union has reached a conclusion – at least for now – that forces the social media giant to remove data consent requirements from its terms of service in favor of explicit consent, and subjects it to a few hundred million more euros in fines for the trouble. The Irish Data …
... although I'd genuinely love to know the full, unvarnished truth behind the Irish DPC's attitude and decisions concerning Zuckerberg and all his little shit-weasels.
Hopefully in due time a (team of) plucky investigative reporter(s) will uncover and publish the facts - and also before any relevant statues of limitation expire.
There's nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory, so long as it's not touted as fact. Of course, if the facts are withheld, theory is all that remains: the DPC [stated] that it would be withholding release of the full decision... WTAF?
...the DPC said that it believed Meta wasn't required to rely on consent, but that the EDPB took "a different view" told us off and explained we should stop believing interpreting legislation to suit our co-conspirators (*ahem!).
You would think that Meta, aka Facebook, would be more careful, bearing in mind their appointment of Former deputy prime minister and Yorkshire Liberal MP Nick Clegg as their president?
He gave many speeches on citizens' rights as an MP and Liberal Party leader.
As a liberal MP Clegg would abhor any abuse of citizen's personal data without their consent? Clearly, if you give someone a big enough pay-check they throw their moral values in the bin.
You reminded me of this, which was written in 1961 by a sociologist, and references an old but timeless joke (attributed variously and incorrectly to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Groucho Marx, Mark Twain, W.C. Fields, Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson and others):
To put this in a different way, all our actions have a price. It is we who decide at what point we agree to be bought. As in the story of a conversation between a very sophisticated gentleman and a very respectable lady at a party. They are talking about prostitution, “Well,” says the gentleman, “just for the sake of our argument, suppose I offered you $1000—would you spend the night with me?” The lady, smiling coquettishly: “Who knows—I might very well!” The gentleman: “Now suppose I offer you $10 for the night?” The lady: “But what do you think I am?” The gentleman: “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
Clearly, if you give someone a big enough pay-check they throw their moral values in the bin.
Bearing in mind that all it took for him to do that in 2010 was a slight sniff of power, I don't think we should be surprised.
Apply the points to the people involved, in addition to your suggestion. Which is to say: one needs to be licensed to hold a executive position. It's ridiculous, I know, but we've already excluded imprisonment and fines. The organisation's revenue stream is the attack vector: either via loss of advertising revenue, or better, shareholders withdrawing (those that give a fuck about more than dividends (ha!)). With the individual exec, they are labelled: executive-non-grata, for future potential stakeholders to peruse.
The fine is kind of minuscule considering the scale of the breach and that it is a rounding error in Meta's finances. There is a provision in the GDPR for increased fines for repeated violations though, so maybe this can be considered an initial slap on the wrist. What worries me more is that the appeal will probably take years to get through the courts while Meta does its best to make it so and continues as they were; I suspect the order to change their ways within three months is put on hold on appeal as well as the fine (?). Fortunately there is a parallel case by NOYB / Max Schrems on its way to the CJEU already: https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-austrian-ogh-asks-cjeu-if-facebook-undermines-gdpr-2018
"According to Schrems, the penalty being paid out by Meta will go to Ireland, 'the state that has taken Meta's side and delayed enforcement for more than four years.'"
Thanks to Schrems for leading the good fight.
If only the U.S. government gave a damn about privacy, Fecesbook and the like never would have metastasized.
Lots of folks have zero trust in the US government but will happily share their lives with the likes of Meta. So, all the US government needed was to strike a deal to use the likes of Meta as a back door. Simples. Then they can get all the data they want with minimal effort.
As an Irish person, I find this kowtowing to foreign (usually US) companies highly embarrassing. I'm also shocked that the DPC is contemplating going to the Court of Justice over this, it's a bloody disgrace.
The NOYB link below has even more egregious details about DPC's behaviour. It looks like the job of enforcing the GDPR should go to another country.
https://noyb.eu/en/breaking-meta-prohibited-use-personal-data-advertising
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
