Europe

8484 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

358

German court bans LinkedIn from ignoring "Do Not Track" signals (stackdiary.com)

submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/europe@feddit.de

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The court found that LinkedIn cannot ignore "Do Not Track" signals sent by users' browsers. These signals allow internet users to opt-out of having their online activities tracked. Despite receiving these signals, LinkedIn still announced on its website that it engages in tracking for analysis and marketing purposes. The court said this communication is misleading, as LinkedIn is legally required to respect the Do Not Track requests.

Additionally, the court banned LinkedIn from automatically making users' profiles publicly visible when they first create an account. This "Profile Visibility" default setting published users' information without their consent, violating data protection regulations. Users must expressly agree before their profiles can be visible to non-members.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] potatar@sh.itjust.works -31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Germany bans this already illegal thing"... So they double banned it?

[–] thfi@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you tell LinkedIn they do something illegal, they'll just ignore you. If you ask a court to tell them, they'll at least have to make a calculation what is cheaper: complying with a court order (less profit from using your data) or ignoring it (more legal fees). We will soon know.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Considering how comically low these fines are, we all know the answer to that one.

[–] Opafi@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, gdpr violation fines are ridiculously high, so at least there's hope that they'll consider complying.

[–] DeathWearsANecktie@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

So they should be. Not respecting user privacy should be incredibly costly!

[–] albert180@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

It's not the Irish data "protection" agency which views their task to be as lax as possible to attract companies and has to get sued to even act and fine companies violating the rules

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 16 points 1 year ago

This is civil law, not criminal. It needs to be brought to court, otherwise if everybody just quietly ignores it it can go on forever unchallenged. Which is exactly what has happened so far: technically, ignoring "do not track" is in breach of GDPR but it's pretty hard to prove that a company does it. What's different about this case is that LinkedIn publicly declared they ignore it, which made it an open and shut case. And now that they got the ball rolling it's going to be easier to go after other companies.