hedders

+1 for this. Takes a bit of configuring before you have it all working seemlessly, and it's probably not ready for non-tinkerers - yet - but it's really powerful.

Hardly. I mean, it's not like it's difficult for a small business to maintain an art 30 record. Unless it's doing a Cambridge Analytica, of course.

The way art 30(5) is drafted though means that the exception applies to basically nobody. What business can, honestly, say that it only occasionally processes personal data? Does it have no employees? Does it only occasionally communicate with people? That hardly seems likely.

Yes, it's probably a drafting defect, but I think one would be very brave indeed to try to rely on it, especially given that establishing an art 30 record is, practically speaking, a prerequisite for being in a position to comply with the rest of GDPR.

Nope. But in some jurisdictions consumer protection and data privacy laws ought to prevent FB doing this, their EULA notwithstanding.

However, bear in mind that this is from The Telegraph, which is a not a high quality news source. There is likely to be a significant element of misreporting, so I'd like to see a verifying story from a credible source before damning FB.

Maybe it's naïve. But I don't think it's really aimed at people who have already declined to participate in social media on privacy grounds. Rather, I suspect the idea is to provide an easier way of managing available controls for people who don't want to give up social media but who are somewhat concerned to reduce their privacy exposure to the world. That has to be a good thing - assuming it works and they're not doing anything nefarious in the background.

All that said, since the app is free and since they claim they're not slurping personal data, I do wonder how they plan to monetise this.