> but it is not necessary for the website displaying the advertisements, as proven by ad-blockers.

when I was a child I stole a toy from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is still around. Therefore, Wal-Mart's entire existence as a store does not depend on any kind of anti-theft measures, and it should be illegal for them to film my entrance and exit.

This is an interesting choice of counter-argument. Firstly three things:

1) Laws don't exist in isolation

2) Long standing law says theft is illegal and stores can take steps to limit it.

3) This new law (GDPR) says you can't take users details and use them unless necessary to provide your service.

With this new GDPR law it's the little guy, the user, that get protection from something of value being taken from them and exploited - their personal details.

So, extending the above counter-argument it is also true to say that like Walmart, the singular 'theft' of personal details might not be terminal for the user. But just like the law recognises the theft of material goods and it's potential harm (even in the case of a singal instance), it now recognises the 'taking' of personal data as harmful (also even a single instance).

Extending the argument further, the GDPR takes the stance that one entity has been taking something of value from another without true compensation for the value of that something.

When we realise that what has been taken from users has value and that users haven't been fairly compensated for that value, it becomes obvious that a set of entities have based a business model on profiting off another set without fair compensation.

The GDPR now limits that behaviour and business model to return balance to the 'contract' between the two parties. Users get to use a service by providing the minimum needed for that service to be provided.

Actually, filming entrance and exits is probably necessary for them to have insurance against theft, which probably is necessary for them to continue operating.

Further, some stores put locks on items and displays that others do not. These are also required for the store to continue offering such services.

You, as an individual, may not have undermined the store. However, you, as an individual among many, may be the reason why certain stores are not able to function as other stores do.

EDIT: to clarify my point, I don't think the GDPR takes how revenue is obtained into account. The revenue model itself must still conform to user consent. The analogy of Walmart to ad-blockers is interesting, though slightly off when one behavior is illegal and the other is not.

But thats not what facebook is doing. Facebook is tracking your every move between stores, public and private spaces, using that information to infer vast knowledge about your likes, dislikes, sexual orientation, income level, political belief, religion, friends and friends of friends. Seeing who you talk to, how long and about what, and then selling that information to anyone, along with access your newsfeed.

Do you mean to say that Facebook's existence isn't entirely dependent on selling personal information to advertisers?

My understanding is that Facebook doesn’t actually sell data to advertisers. By this I mean you can’t go to Facebook and say, “I would like to buy data for 10,000 18-24 year old males in New York City, how much?” Instead you say, “I have an ad I want to show to 10,000 18-24 year old males in NYC, how much?” Facebook then handles serving the ad for you and sends you data about how succufull your campaigne was, when people click on the ad and visit your website you obviously can collect data from them there. This is subtle difference and one I think few people have been articulating, probally in part because it makes you sound like a shill for Facebook.

This actually makes more sense finically for Facebook, if they did the first thing people would only have to buy data once, and worse they could resell the data to third parties decreasing Facebook’s control of the market. Instead by retaining control of the data Facebook can charge an advertiser for every ad they show, making more money. Ironically this also better protects peoples privacy because Facebook isn’t actually giving the data away.

Unfortunately, if I run an ad targeting 18-24 year old males in New York City, and my ad manages to collect IP addresses, I have effectively purchased information about anyone who sees my ad.

It's certainly not a complete profile, and may have ranges of categorizations (i.e. 18-24 years old) BUT as an advertiser, I probably wouldn't need or want data more specific than that anyway.

Unfortunately you can’t collect IP addrssses from people who saw your ad though, because FB doesn’t let you :)

You can of course though collect them if people actually click on them and come to your website! This is also the case for non targeted ads mind you as it’s simply how the web works

I don't think the GDPR's "necessary to work" clause considers profit models. I believe, (again, IANAL) that "necessary to work" is really "necessary for a feature to function"; how a company derives revenue from the service doesn't come into account.

It would be interesting to see revenue as a necessity be tested in court, since there are open-source social networks that don't rely on user tracking or data sales to the extent that Facebook does it.

On the contrary, commercial interests, including things like direct marketing, are considered acceptable "legitimate interests" under the GDPR, assuming the practice follows industry standards, ethics, and are legal.

However, they need to pass two other tests, a "necessity" test that determines that the processing of information is necessary to serve the interest, and, most crucially, a "balancing" test which balances the commercial interest against the user's interests, rights, and freedoms. It's this latter part where more onerous advertising practices will falter.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

Interesting... the "necessity" test was what I was referring to for "necessary to work". However, I wasn't aware of the "balancing" test.

Also, does Facebook's ad network really constitute "direct marketing"? I had imagined that to be more of an email blast about a new FB feature, rather than collect-your-usage-data-and-sell-marketing-slots-to-you.

Now that I type that out, I guess it does make more sense. However, I really am not a big fan of the common-law approach to the "balancing" test. Basically, whoever has the most money and faces the most lenient judge wins. Everyone else is left guessing what the hell is legal and what isn't, when a clear set of rules would be much easier to fairly apply to everyone.

Erroneous guesses about GDPR, upvoted. Legal fact citing the law itself, downvoted.

Vote me down all you like, but it doesn't affect what is actual legal fact :-)

> However, you have to be prepared to defend in court that it IS necessary.

I'm pretty sure Facebook has the resources to have hired competent lawyers to advise them on that, and the money to afford preparation and execution of a strong court presentation of their viewpoint.

And Facebook probably had more information on what is necessary for the system Facebook provides to work than people trying to guess that from the outside.

It is, of course, possible, and, perhaps even likely, that a court will disagree with what they argue, and force a change—but it may be, from a PR perspective, worth the cost of non-compliance sanctions to have any decrease in utility resulting from changes they will be compelled to make to be very visibly forced on them by orders that they vigorously fought rather than self-initiated, so that European authorities and the GDPR get the blame for any reduced quality.

> I'm pretty sure Facebook has the resources to have hired competent lawyers to advise them on that

You could say that about any of the resource-rich people and companies that have subsequently had their arse handed to them in court.

Yes, you could, and the rest of my post addresses why it might be in FBs interest to push this even if they are likely to lose.