A long-anticipated judgement today by the Court of Justice of the European Union looks to have comprehensively crushed Meta's ability to deny European users a free choice over its tracking and profiling.
That’s all well and good, but does it protect those of us that chose not to use Meta’s services in the first place?
I knew what they were doing, chose not to be associated with it, but I know that they’ve still got a profile on me via people I know who use their services.
From the article it mentions making consent-less tracking illegal. Considering you’re not using their system and therefore don’t have the ability to consent in the first place, it seems to cover that sort of tracking.
Not sure that was the original goal, so it might not immediately fall in the jurisdiction, but a case could be made that would set precedent there. I’m really hoping that pans out.
I’m also hoping (though I know it’s a slim possibility) that this sort of law will occur here in the US as well… California might try it, but Meta lobbies Congress enough that I can’t see it happening here any time soon.
That’s all well and good, but does it protect those of us that chose not to use Meta’s services in the first place?
I knew what they were doing, chose not to be associated with it, but I know that they’ve still got a profile on me via people I know who use their services.
From the article it mentions making consent-less tracking illegal. Considering you’re not using their system and therefore don’t have the ability to consent in the first place, it seems to cover that sort of tracking.
Not sure that was the original goal, so it might not immediately fall in the jurisdiction, but a case could be made that would set precedent there. I’m really hoping that pans out.
I’m also hoping (though I know it’s a slim possibility) that this sort of law will occur here in the US as well… California might try it, but Meta lobbies Congress enough that I can’t see it happening here any time soon.