| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | |
> Finding the company had accessed Android users' photographs and videos without obtaining their consent or informing them. > Users must grant permission on their device before the feature can operate, and they can change that permission at any time in their settings. > The fine is equivalent to about 0.47% of the group's global revenue. What is Italy protecting Italians from here? I think it's clear consent was given at some point. So the objection is what? They need to ask consent again periodically? Or on a feature-by-feature basis? Who was conceivably harmed, and how? How does Meta accept user content in the future without running afoul of the exact same rule again? | ||
| ▲ | dwattttt an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
> > Finding the company had accessed Android users' photographs and videos without obtaining their consent or informing them. > I think it's clear consent was given at some point That's not what was found. I don't know the facts of the case, but it's possible that "consent" mechanisms were found to be insufficient. As an example, if you ask for permission for one purpose, then use it for another, that would probably not meet the "inform users" bar. | ||
| ▲ | microtonal 6 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Clear consent under the GDPR requires that you state the purpose for every different use of data and ask consent separately. Giving access to photos so that the user can upload a photo is not giving consent to analyze all the photos of the user on a phone. The main principle of the GDPR is to store and use as little private data as possible and only get/store data when the user explicitly asks for it/consents to it. (IANAL of course.) | ||