"Obviously Brussels is full of lobbyists, think tanks and people who never disclose that they are working for the companies. The gatekeepers are the law firms"
"The GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft) have acquired more than 1,000 firms in the past 20 years, and zero of those transactions have been blocked - and 97 percent were not even assessed by anybody. These are extreme, ridiculous numbers"
"these think tanks, like the Global Antitrust Institute [at George Mason University], and the International Centre for Law & Economics, they are funded by the Koch brothers, by the Googles and the Facebooks, they don’t disclose, and they basically brainwash generations of judges"
I wonder whether EU data protection authorities have, in part, the same problem.
At least, perhaps "concentration in Europe is not quite as bad as in the U.S. We have had more active regulators. We have made lots of mistakes, it’s been slow, it’s been late, maybe the remedies didn’t work out, but within the available laws Europe tried to achieve something"
"Especially in the first mandate of [European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe] Vestager, she had a mandate and the energy to do new things. The second mandate of Vestager hasn’t started with the same energy, I’d say."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most "systems that could inflict serious economic harm are treated negligently. Strikingly the proposal ignores most economic harms", and "the ban of #DarkPatterns ... has largely disappeared".
Zalando setzt für 5000 Beschäftigte ein Ratingsystem ein, bei dem sich alle gegenseitig bewerten und dann als Low/Good/Top Performer eingestuft werden.
Einerseits gut, dass die Behörde damit zumindest einige krasse Probleme entschärft hat.
Andererseits werden hier m.E. die Limitierungen des Datenschutzrechts als Instrument zu Eindämmung einseitiger betrieblicher Gestaltungsmacht sichtbar.
"Nach wie vor haben Beschäftigte, die weder als Bewertete noch als Bewerter*innen an dem Bewertungssystem teilnehmen wollen, keine Nachteile zu befürchten"
Kann es diese Freiwilligkeit, die mir eine Grundprämisse der Einschätzung der Behörde zu sein scheint, im Betrieb geben?
"Banning us, the small adtech firms, from harvesting and linking data on billions across 1000s of companies without people's knowledge will benefit big tech, so you shouldn't"
"Banning us, the small food producers, from selling toxic food will benefit big food, so you shouldn't"
"Banning us from providing toxic food will kill competition, innovation and small businesses. Big food also provides toxic food, and they can easily afford to comply with regulations or shape them how they see fit or delay the enforcement, while we, the small producers cannot."
"So, the solution is clearly to allow both small and big food provide toxic food."
…without explanation, the investigator changed the priority level on the escalation from "high" to "low"
Essential read on how FB just does not care about the world, because business goals. Breathtaking irresponsibility. Huge creds to the whistleblower. theguardian.com/technology/202…
FB has control over global debate and social relationships at an unprecedented scale.
It's disastrous that FB only cares if cheap, very visible or otherwise in its self interest. And it's disastrous that FB has this kind of control, without any democratic accountability, at all.
"It’s not for threat intel to investigate fake engagement"
"I don’t think Honduras is big on people’s minds here"
"we prioritize stopping the most urgent and harmful threats globally. Fake likes is not one of them"
"I wish resources were unlimited"
(w $54.86bn in cash on hand)
The large number of breaches shouldn't lead to the conclusion that data protection doesn't matter anymore, quite the contrary.
It shows that making the legitimacy to use personal data dependent on the functioning of technical measures or privacy self-management is totally over.
Of course, orgs must care about security, and they must be liable for not doing so. But there will always be shady actors who will use dirty data for shady purposes.
In any case, we need to make sure that legit entities cannot legally use dirty data without risking everything.
Regulating how entities can legally use/process personal data is basically what the EU data protection regime is about. Enforcing it requires bureaucratic procedures from documenting data processing to audits to general deterrence etc.
According to the German Consumer Federation, the EU's #psd2 directive turned bank transaction data into a commodity and created a 'pipeline' for data flows to fintechs and other parties without much oversight.