Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."
To be technically correct: if even a single non-premium member can, for some reason, see who viewed their profile, then the statement "only Premium members can see who has viewed their profile" is false.
So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.
Also, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.
Seriously, this is what I miss the most in legacy media. Much too often "journalists" will simply relay politicians' statements uncritically, when they're obviously fallacious or straight lies. This is very refreshing on The Register's part.
I wonder if they will be able to make any argument along the lines of: we’re much more confident about the identities of paying customers so we think there’s less privacy risk in that case.
I think they should lose the case but I’m curious if anyone can think of a good argument for their side, at all (in the European context where there are data laws, “it’s their website they do what they want” is the conventional US perspective but I don’t really see what that leaves us to discuss).
They should give the data to people who ask, which will be a snapshot in time presented in a spreadsheet. Then what you are paying for is the interface that shows you who clicked yesterday with a thumbnail and a link to their profile, and who will click tomorrow, as long as you keep paying. But refusing the download option is not on.
Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. They have such a strong argument here, too. I can imagine that whoever came up with this is very pleased with theirselves, and rightfully so.
It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit. LinkedIn sucks, and I hate this feature. But that’s why I hardly use it and don’t pay them any money.
Yeah, that's a very... interesting definition of "bold". One might argue that since operating inside a regulated environment is so out of his comfort zone, setting up shop in the EU would be the bold thing to do.
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, you're welcome to setup shop in the most anarchist society you can find. Good luck with whatever version of "operating" you're able to manage while there :)
Yeah but the opponents of the people literally believe democracy is bad and want to go back to monarchism in the form of unaccountable CEO kings that decide the will of the people.
Sadly this is like half the tech workforce too. People too brainwashed to see how destructive their work is to the world.
I am actively working on several senate and congressional campaigns, believe me that these people want to actively imprison some of these CEOs for the destruction they wrought upon the world too. These stump speeches tend to get the crowds most riled up too. :D
Once you work to demolish democracy, you are not the opposition in the sense that democracies use the word - e.g. somebody who disagrees with government policy, but not with the constitutional order itself.
You instead become an enemy of democracy and of our society.
Democratic states have defense mechanisms against that sort of putschist - jail is not some fantasy, but a natural consequence.
I wouldn't take them too seriously, there's strong indication that they're just trolling for the lols and aren't interested in an actually substantive discussion.
What? Of course it isn't! I mean, I guess you could argue that it's technically a slur in the sense that it is disparaging, but obviously the guy knows that he's being disparaging- you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong, and bureaucrat is not that. It also refers specifically and exclusively to the parts of the government that aren't democratically elected; the opposite of what you're saying.
Even setting that aside, 'the fat cheeto and his deplorable clowns in congress' is a slur for a democratically elected government, "the will of the people". So what? We shouldn't be allowed to insult a democratically elected government for some reason? Democracies are certainly preferable to autocracies, but that doesn't mean 'democratically elected' is a synonym for 'good'.
"you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong"
you are reading into this too much, slur is often used as a word for a general insult.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to respond to 'I don't want to deal with their bureaucrats' with 'You do realize that's an insult, right?'. Yeah, he realizes, he is clearly trying to be insulting. It's only an insult because of that intent, in fact. A lot more sensible if the intent is to suggest that the word ought not be used because it is an insult beyond what is acceptable in polite society, which is the much more common usage of 'slur'.
Not to say it's impossible you're right that it's being brought up irrelevantly, but I do think the odds are on my side and I further think it would be worth writing a sentence calling that out even if they weren't.
His point, I assume, was that many people insulting beurocrats think that those are somehow seperate from the people they elected i.e. it's not some unidentifiable blob responsible for these things but the person /you/ voted for. At least that's my charitable interpretation.
Also why should we allow such companies to exist if the vast majority of people don't like their actions? There's no fundamental right to starting a business, so might as well make businesses socially acceptable rather than fucking the public for profit.
As everyone knows, there are no soldiers, or litigation lawyers, or security guards, or investigative journalists, or police, or home inspectors, in America, since everyone understands it would be inappropriate to make life difficult for bad actors. The one true way is to lie down for corporations, and tell anyone who doesn't like it that they're free to live in the woods and interact with no-one if they appreciate personal liberty so much.
You think standing in for people's rights against the profit interests of transnational corporations means "making life difficult"? Whose life exactly? That of the CEO of Microsoft?
Well, not all Americans. Just ones of a specific political bent that is common on this site. And the wealthy ones, because they have the money hoarding disease
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit.
It's really hard to understand concepts when you're internationally masking and misleading yourself.
Obviously no one things "making life difficult is a worthy pursuit", but, doing the right thing sometimes is worth a bit of the difficulties it introduces, this is why you see moves like this.
You force yourself onto my life (because, for various reasons, most of the career listings are there for example) and then you attempt to make it miserable too, by using and abusing every FOMO tool in the box ?
You bet your ass I'm going to make your life difficult. If you want it to stop, you're the one with the ball on your side of the court, you know exactly what to do.
It's a very American concept, to believe you can just ignore systems and networks. The guy shitting in your yard every day doesn't go away just because you're not looking at him do it.
Weird thing to say when I’m specifically refusing to acknowledge the EU’s perceived authority tbh. I’m an American, so it’s in my best interest for American companies to thrive. If you’re not, then I guess it would be more accurate to describe me as THE BOOT ITSELF.
You're refusing to acknowledge the authority of democratic institutions and instead defend unelected oligarchs. If that isn't boot licking, I don't know what is.
Making the lives of those that wish to exploit us and monetize our relationships on their enshittified platforms is not the same as making everyone's life difficult.
I would say that they are the first that decide to make everyone's life harder on purpose, first. Trying to pay them back is the least somebody could do
Please don't post national/regional slurs to HN. I agree that it's different when you're part of the group, but from a moderation point of view the effect on the threads ends up being bad anyway.
Don't worry! it happens naturally because it's the way people speak in small conversations, and in that context perfectly ok.
The unnatural part is us trying to steer this large/public conversation away from the standards of small/private conversation, which is basically impossible but also a must, if HN isn't to self-destruct.
Edit: there's an additional twist, too, which is that HN's form factor feels like a smaller and more intimate conversation than it really is. That's great in many ways! But it obscures the fact that when people post here, they're really broadcasting to a large audience.
Correction, we hate making money at the expense of other peoples rights and liberties. It's kind of frustrating to have to explain that to US folks over and over again... all that "freedom" in their things is apparently very decorative.
I'd say instead that we value the commons and don't like companies making money by externalising all their problems to the general public.
If company Foo leaks my personal data, I suffer, they don't, so without regulation there's no reason for them to invest in protecting it. Same with pollution and similar
I'm european (what a vague term...) and I disagree completely. I have never seen this attitude you apparently have. I've seen lots of celebration of innovation and entrepreneurship, I've seen less appreciation for the american style "anything goes as long as the stock price goes up" business environment.
I don’t agree. I run a startup in Europe for a couple of years. I never had once someone hating in me because we are successful. Literally everyone I talked with abiut it thinks its super cool what we do and supported the efforts and wished us best of luck or offered actual help.
The Europeans are very aware of the externalities of businesses. This translates to more bureacracy and often also into pretty dumb “solutions” (cookie banner). Gdpr is not one of those dumb solutions btw. Its annoying to implement, true, and it puts EU business at a disadvantage compared to US businesses, but it gives also power to the people. And that is what counts in the end.
Ask yourself: do you really want to live in a Jarvinian techno-monarchy, where companies are the ultimate power holders? I am not so sure I want that.
My hope for the future is that Europeans will eventually build proper alternatives to US companies and escape the chokehold. Then we all play by our own rules and no one is at a disadvantage. Seems like a pipe dream now, but then I remember that England ruled the world not so long ago and China was a third world country nit worth mentioning. Things can turn quickly!
One more thing: Brussel really goes too far, too often. So I am always crossing my fingers for more market liberal parties to gain influence. I dont like a huge government. Not at all. But i dont believe in the nightwatch government idea either.
It must be rememebered that this is the forum of an American investment company. There are far too many here who would love to be the corprate boot crushing us underfood.
"In Ireland, people have an interesting attitude toward success—they look down on it. In America, you look at the mansion on the hill and think, 'One day that will be me.' In Ireland, people say, 'One day, I'm going to get that bastard!'"
Dating apps do this too; one of the major selling points of Tinder's premium plan is that you can see who swiped right on you.
They're not at as much of a risk though, as it's much more difficult to begin a chat with a Tinder user than it is on Linked In. Knowing the profile ID or whatever won't help you, if you can't open their profile in-app and swipe right on it, you can't begin a conversation.
I'm not a fan of how LinkedIn operates ... or the culture there in general.
At the same time I wonder what happens when users realize everything they look at is now more visible than ever? People just make fake accounts for browsing?
Maybe it should be that way, but there's an interesting dynamic to "what you look at (even if not a full picture) is visible to some people".
I think SaaS pricing model has long been abusive. So, you have a platform, which takes real money to build and maintain. But then you build features on top of that platform, where some features are build-once and require not a lot of maintenance and no additional expenses - the code is just sitting there doing the stuff. Then you request additional money for that feature, which is effectively free for you.
Unlike physical goods where a higher price reflects higher production cost, SaaS companies have to engineer scarcity into a product that is naturally abundant.
In this LinkedIn example, they already collect the profile visitors for everyone. Instead, they spent additional engineering resources building the restriction layer and then charge the users to undo the sabotage.
The price of something is not necessarily the function of the cost of producing it. It is the value to the buyer. Of course, you have edge cases on both sides of the scale, some things are of less value (to some markets) than the cost of producing them, and some things are of high value when producing them costs almost nothing. That's part of why free markets are so great, they are value-oriented and not only cost-based.
LinkedIn shared a public profile a user filled out for the purposes of sharing.
Someone viewed the profile.
How exactly is it “personal data” who viewed the profile?
If I put my resume on my website, is my ISP required to tell me who visited my website? (The logs give technical data, but not the name of the person viewing.)
Personal data is data that relates to to you. What relates to you is the list of users who viewed your profile.
I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
If you mean that Meta probably has a list of which users visited which other users and that they use it for internal stuff? Well, then Meta could argue they won’t tell you who visited you because they need to protect their privacy (harder for LinkedIn since they are selling that data so clearly they don’t care)
I was going to raise this question here. Then again, the only thing you might get is an identifier of the person that swiped left/right on you. You won't really be able to do much with that, though, unless you reverse-engineer the dating site's API and invoke it directly to access dating profiles. …which apps might be able to prevent by using device attestation / Google SafetyNet etc. (You can't easily extract the auth key required for the API.)
Not sure I follow the logic. The list of profiles I visit feels like it’s my data, not the owners of target profile. By that logic can I GDPR chrome for the browsing history of anyone who has visited my site? IANAL but I thought GDPR is about getting a copy of your data, not others.
The problem for linkedin is they try to simultaneously claim that it’s the visitors data and therefore they can’t disclose it at the same time as claiming its linkedin’s data so they can sell access to it
They can spin it as "the list of profiles you visit is your data", this list they'll probably give you if requested, but in addition they're also willing to sell you others' data (the list of people who visit you).
Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.
"personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person" - GDPR article 4
Data often pertains to multiple people (trivial case: direct messages between two users); the rights of GDPR apply to your data, regardless of whether it also pertains to multiple others, subject to some restrictions to safeguard the rights of others. Those legal restrictions clearly don't apply because you could pay to obtain that access.
LinkedIn would need to prove in court that the list of users who visited your profile is not your data.
Additionally, your profile is undisputably your data. Per article 15 of the GDPR, you have a right to access "the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations".
I think it's more like if you owned a blogspot site, and you're gdpr'ing the list of users who visited your site (given Google logged every single user who visited, and associated that visit specifically with you).
Linkedin is recording every person who visits your profile and keeps that in your user records, and they are already selling it back to you. The argument is that you have a right to that data.
Linkedin is arguing that this data needs to be protected for the privacy of those visiting your profile and the argument is that if they really believed that, they wouldn't sell it back to you, compromising that privacy anyway.
If Google approached me and offered me Chrome Premium that allows me to see the identities of everyone who has visited my site, I feel like we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
I think the key point here is that LinkedIn distributes personal data of the profile owner to the visitor. That data is subject to GDPR, so the plaintiff assumes that they have the right to know who received that data from LinkedIn.
What kind of personal data of the website owner does google analytics distribute that makes that analogy work?
I don't quite get the "GDPR requires you to share with someone the personal details of people who happened to visit a webpage that you setup on a free website" angle here. I don't get how that's your data and not the data of the people who visited the page?
That seems to violate the GDPR more than the current state, no? If I accidentally click on your profile you're entitled to my name and employer and that's your data now? Makes no sense, other than from a "GDPR good, US tech bad!" angle, I guess.
(copied from my earlier comment) I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
Agree, I don't fully understand the argument that this would be the owning profiles data, and not either Linkedin's or the viewer's.
Would you be entitled to search query data from Google because your website is in some query results, and Google has to provide you that metadata for free?
I believe that the case here is different. That would be true, say, for your substack page. But in this case, your "profile" is more than just a web page, it contains personal information, which albeit public, is your property according to the law. Therefore any interaction with it falls under article 15.
Personally I would find it fantastic if LinkedIn is forced to make this feature available to all users. I can't see it but as a win for consumers and a loss for inducing payment through extraction of interrelational value.
Noyb basically built a logic trap linkedin can't squirm out of: either selling the visitor list to premium users is illegal or handing it over for free under article 15 is mandatory - pick one
I don’t think anyone has tested that in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if it should belong to you but fact that most CCTV footage is (or at least was) stored by small independent entities means that you aren’t aware that your CCTV data exists, or wouldn’t find it worthwhile to request it all.
It would be an interesting angle of attack against classic surveillance, though. If there are any vendors that store the video in some centralized system, so you can request it all at once.
But, I think there will be some hurdles, this case specifically relies on the fact that LinkedIn clearly doesn’t believe there’s any reason to keep this data private (they sell users access to it, after all).
You absolutely can request CCTV footage of you in the EEA. You need to specify time period with sufficient specificity, and how to identify you so they can ensure they are handing out footage of you, but you have a right to it.
It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
It’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
It would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
That is true in the EU in a number of circumstances. You can do a data access request for CCTV footage of yourself; I’ve successfully done this before, and some organizations give out CCTV footage this way often enough they have websites about their procedures. For organizations I know of, they blur other people in the footage.
Yes, of course. In European cities there are GDPR disclosures hanged on the lampposts on which CCTV cameras are mounted. The disclosure contains retention period and contact to data processing inspector where you can request the data. You probably need to specify the timestamps and haw to recognise you.
In commercial buildings the disclosure may hang on the wall besides main entrance.
"Pertains" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and you're using it wrong. The data about who viewed your profile pertains to you from the moment the visit happens. That's what that word means, so your first statement is false.
The other important detail is that LinkedIn already has processed this data that definitely pertains to you, whether you paid for it or not, and are trying to sell it to you. In fact, to quote the article, LinkedIn's argument for not giving it to the user is "on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence". LinkedIn isn't withholding viewer data to protect viewer privacy. We know this because they sell it. If the viewer's privacy interest were so compelling that it overrides your Article 15 right (which is what Noyb is referring to), it would also be compelling enough to prevent LinkedIn from selling that same data to Premium subscribers.
The argument being made for this specific feature (not the ones you added) is that you can't simultaneously claim the data is too privacy-sensitive to disclose under GDPR and then sell it as a product feature
Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.
Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."
To be technically correct: if even a single non-premium member can, for some reason, see who viewed their profile, then the statement "only Premium members can see who has viewed their profile" is false.
So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.
But the statement wasn't false, was it? I'm not a paying member of LinkedIn, and I can see who visited my profile.
What you have is the ability to see every 5th person who entered your house.
They do say they won’t bother, but the rest of the article is actually precisely covering this second point, aka Article 15 of LK Privacy Policy
Rhetorical argument is rhetorical?
It's covering article 15 of the GDPR, not of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy.
Also, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.
Seriously, this is what I miss the most in legacy media. Much too often "journalists" will simply relay politicians' statements uncritically, when they're obviously fallacious or straight lies. This is very refreshing on The Register's part.
This is the ludicrous part:
> LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence.
Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection
I wonder if they will be able to make any argument along the lines of: we’re much more confident about the identities of paying customers so we think there’s less privacy risk in that case.
I think they should lose the case but I’m curious if anyone can think of a good argument for their side, at all (in the European context where there are data laws, “it’s their website they do what they want” is the conventional US perspective but I don’t really see what that leaves us to discuss).
They should give the data to people who ask, which will be a snapshot in time presented in a spreadsheet. Then what you are paying for is the interface that shows you who clicked yesterday with a thumbnail and a link to their profile, and who will click tomorrow, as long as you keep paying. But refusing the download option is not on.
Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. They have such a strong argument here, too. I can imagine that whoever came up with this is very pleased with theirselves, and rightfully so.
It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit. LinkedIn sucks, and I hate this feature. But that’s why I hardly use it and don’t pay them any money.
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit
This is an incredibly bold statement, and something I really cannot relate to having lived in Europe for over a decade.
It comes across as more of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who believes oversight or accountability of any kind is by definition a needless burden.
I’m an incredibly bold guy. And I would personally just stop operating in the EU if it was between that and being accountable to their bureaucrats.
So you don't want to be accountable to users, or to bureaucrats? If you had to choose one who would it be?
Might be tough for a Florida-man to understand but there's a difference between being bold and being an a-hole.
Yeah, that's a very... interesting definition of "bold". One might argue that since operating inside a regulated environment is so out of his comfort zone, setting up shop in the EU would be the bold thing to do.
Maybe I’ll set up shop in the EU one day :)
Will you welcome me with open arms as long as I warn my users that my app uses cookies?
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, you're welcome to setup shop in the most anarchist society you can find. Good luck with whatever version of "operating" you're able to manage while there :)
Why would I move to London?
Despite Brexit propaganda, the UK still has bureaucrats and regulation. Try again :)
Edit: in case this was an attempted swipe at me, I'm not British, btw ;)
London is safer than many american cities, what are you talking about?
edit: removed snark
You do know that "the bureaucrats" is just a slur for our democratically elected government, right?
In other words, the will of the people.
Yeah but the opponents of the people literally believe democracy is bad and want to go back to monarchism in the form of unaccountable CEO kings that decide the will of the people.
Sadly this is like half the tech workforce too. People too brainwashed to see how destructive their work is to the world.
I believe it is up to the other half to stand up for decency, for democracy and for the rule of law.
Don't be quiet, don't just let things happen. Use your voice while you still have it!
I am actively working on several senate and congressional campaigns, believe me that these people want to actively imprison some of these CEOs for the destruction they wrought upon the world too. These stump speeches tend to get the crowds most riled up too. :D
Thuper thcary. I’m shaking in my boots. My timbers are completely and utterly shivered.
I'm not trying to scare you, just letting you know I'm someone that does more than advocacy. I'm actively organizing with people that share my values.
It's a great feeling, definitely a defining human trait that everyone should experience.
Hopefully you find your tribe someday.
Bonding with leftists over fantasies of throwing your opposition in jail. I doubt any of that is even real, but if it is, that’s sad.
If it makes you feel better to pretend I’m not surrounded by love, then by all means, add that to the pile of things you’re pretending.
Why don't you want to talk to me about London anymore D:
Please don't twist language in semantic games.
Once you work to demolish democracy, you are not the opposition in the sense that democracies use the word - e.g. somebody who disagrees with government policy, but not with the constitutional order itself.
You instead become an enemy of democracy and of our society.
Democratic states have defense mechanisms against that sort of putschist - jail is not some fantasy, but a natural consequence.
I wouldn't take them too seriously, there's strong indication that they're just trolling for the lols and aren't interested in an actually substantive discussion.
The far-right is never just joking or doing things for the lols. It is a thin shield to prevent being called out.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/26/990274685/how-extremists-weap...
I'm not convinced this person is far-right, but even so there are smarter ways of repudiating them, that's all I'm saying.
What? Of course it isn't! I mean, I guess you could argue that it's technically a slur in the sense that it is disparaging, but obviously the guy knows that he's being disparaging- you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong, and bureaucrat is not that. It also refers specifically and exclusively to the parts of the government that aren't democratically elected; the opposite of what you're saying.
Even setting that aside, 'the fat cheeto and his deplorable clowns in congress' is a slur for a democratically elected government, "the will of the people". So what? We shouldn't be allowed to insult a democratically elected government for some reason? Democracies are certainly preferable to autocracies, but that doesn't mean 'democratically elected' is a synonym for 'good'.
"you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong" you are reading into this too much, slur is often used as a word for a general insult.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to respond to 'I don't want to deal with their bureaucrats' with 'You do realize that's an insult, right?'. Yeah, he realizes, he is clearly trying to be insulting. It's only an insult because of that intent, in fact. A lot more sensible if the intent is to suggest that the word ought not be used because it is an insult beyond what is acceptable in polite society, which is the much more common usage of 'slur'.
Not to say it's impossible you're right that it's being brought up irrelevantly, but I do think the odds are on my side and I further think it would be worth writing a sentence calling that out even if they weren't.
His point, I assume, was that many people insulting beurocrats think that those are somehow seperate from the people they elected i.e. it's not some unidentifiable blob responsible for these things but the person /you/ voted for. At least that's my charitable interpretation.
It’s about having rights, and exercising them. If companies find that difficult to work with then they’re not even hitting the minimum baseline.
Also why should we allow such companies to exist if the vast majority of people don't like their actions? There's no fundamental right to starting a business, so might as well make businesses socially acceptable rather than fucking the public for profit.
As everyone knows, there are no soldiers, or litigation lawyers, or security guards, or investigative journalists, or police, or home inspectors, in America, since everyone understands it would be inappropriate to make life difficult for bad actors. The one true way is to lie down for corporations, and tell anyone who doesn't like it that they're free to live in the woods and interact with no-one if they appreciate personal liberty so much.
You think standing in for people's rights against the profit interests of transnational corporations means "making life difficult"? Whose life exactly? That of the CEO of Microsoft?
Hey, he MIGHT be that CEO one day. Currently he’s temporarily embarrassed billionaire.
> Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult.
Literally the comment I replied to.
it is a very American concept, that company interests should be placed above human interests and rights.
Well, not all Americans. Just ones of a specific political bent that is common on this site. And the wealthy ones, because they have the money hoarding disease
When an entity becomes almost a monopoly, surely the rules about some behaviours should be stronger
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit.
It's really hard to understand concepts when you're internationally masking and misleading yourself.
Obviously no one things "making life difficult is a worthy pursuit", but, doing the right thing sometimes is worth a bit of the difficulties it introduces, this is why you see moves like this.
You don't pay them anything but you are the product, genius !
Oh wow, I’ve never heard that one before. I had no idea!
making life difficult for _people i don't like_ is a worthy pursuit
You force yourself onto my life (because, for various reasons, most of the career listings are there for example) and then you attempt to make it miserable too, by using and abusing every FOMO tool in the box ?
You bet your ass I'm going to make your life difficult. If you want it to stop, you're the one with the ball on your side of the court, you know exactly what to do.
It's a very American concept, to believe you can just ignore systems and networks. The guy shitting in your yard every day doesn't go away just because you're not looking at him do it.
This is 100% going to be the boot lickiest comment I read all day
Weird thing to say when I’m specifically refusing to acknowledge the EU’s perceived authority tbh. I’m an American, so it’s in my best interest for American companies to thrive. If you’re not, then I guess it would be more accurate to describe me as THE BOOT ITSELF.
Bro thinks he's on the team
You're refusing to acknowledge the authority of democratic institutions and instead defend unelected oligarchs. If that isn't boot licking, I don't know what is.
Making the lives of those that wish to exploit us and monetize our relationships on their enshittified platforms is not the same as making everyone's life difficult.
I would say that they are the first that decide to make everyone's life harder on purpose, first. Trying to pay them back is the least somebody could do
[flagged]
Please don't post national/regional slurs to HN. I agree that it's different when you're part of the group, but from a moderation point of view the effect on the threads ends up being bad anyway.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thank you for pointing that out. Fair point. Sorry for spoiling the atmosphere.
Don't worry! it happens naturally because it's the way people speak in small conversations, and in that context perfectly ok.
The unnatural part is us trying to steer this large/public conversation away from the standards of small/private conversation, which is basically impossible but also a must, if HN isn't to self-destruct.
Edit: there's an additional twist, too, which is that HN's form factor feels like a smaller and more intimate conversation than it really is. That's great in many ways! But it obscures the fact that when people post here, they're really broadcasting to a large audience.
Correction, we hate making money at the expense of other peoples rights and liberties. It's kind of frustrating to have to explain that to US folks over and over again... all that "freedom" in their things is apparently very decorative.
Depends on what you mean by right. Oftentimes it's rephrased as "The other guy's obligation".
Care to elaborate on that?
You have the obligation to not do things at the expense of others' freedoms.
I'd say instead that we value the commons and don't like companies making money by externalising all their problems to the general public.
If company Foo leaks my personal data, I suffer, they don't, so without regulation there's no reason for them to invest in protecting it. Same with pollution and similar
I'm european (what a vague term...) and I disagree completely. I have never seen this attitude you apparently have. I've seen lots of celebration of innovation and entrepreneurship, I've seen less appreciation for the american style "anything goes as long as the stock price goes up" business environment.
I don’t agree. I run a startup in Europe for a couple of years. I never had once someone hating in me because we are successful. Literally everyone I talked with abiut it thinks its super cool what we do and supported the efforts and wished us best of luck or offered actual help.
The Europeans are very aware of the externalities of businesses. This translates to more bureacracy and often also into pretty dumb “solutions” (cookie banner). Gdpr is not one of those dumb solutions btw. Its annoying to implement, true, and it puts EU business at a disadvantage compared to US businesses, but it gives also power to the people. And that is what counts in the end.
Ask yourself: do you really want to live in a Jarvinian techno-monarchy, where companies are the ultimate power holders? I am not so sure I want that.
My hope for the future is that Europeans will eventually build proper alternatives to US companies and escape the chokehold. Then we all play by our own rules and no one is at a disadvantage. Seems like a pipe dream now, but then I remember that England ruled the world not so long ago and China was a third world country nit worth mentioning. Things can turn quickly!
One more thing: Brussel really goes too far, too often. So I am always crossing my fingers for more market liberal parties to gain influence. I dont like a huge government. Not at all. But i dont believe in the nightwatch government idea either.
Being an European doesn't make your arguments less ridiculous.
It must be rememebered that this is the forum of an American investment company. There are far too many here who would love to be the corprate boot crushing us underfood.
"In Ireland, people have an interesting attitude toward success—they look down on it. In America, you look at the mansion on the hill and think, 'One day that will be me.' In Ireland, people say, 'One day, I'm going to get that bastard!'"
Dating apps do this too; one of the major selling points of Tinder's premium plan is that you can see who swiped right on you.
They're not at as much of a risk though, as it's much more difficult to begin a chat with a Tinder user than it is on Linked In. Knowing the profile ID or whatever won't help you, if you can't open their profile in-app and swipe right on it, you can't begin a conversation.
I'm not a fan of how LinkedIn operates ... or the culture there in general.
At the same time I wonder what happens when users realize everything they look at is now more visible than ever? People just make fake accounts for browsing?
Maybe it should be that way, but there's an interesting dynamic to "what you look at (even if not a full picture) is visible to some people".
Also have those fake accounts verified for a good measure, just like all the scammer accounts on LinkedIn.
Easy, sell people the option to hide their profile viewing
That's so last week; we need micro-auctions between people who want to see and people whose data is involved.
Like a reverse panopticon - a truly terrifying concept if you tease it out …
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts further on this…
I think SaaS pricing model has long been abusive. So, you have a platform, which takes real money to build and maintain. But then you build features on top of that platform, where some features are build-once and require not a lot of maintenance and no additional expenses - the code is just sitting there doing the stuff. Then you request additional money for that feature, which is effectively free for you.
Unlike physical goods where a higher price reflects higher production cost, SaaS companies have to engineer scarcity into a product that is naturally abundant.
In this LinkedIn example, they already collect the profile visitors for everyone. Instead, they spent additional engineering resources building the restriction layer and then charge the users to undo the sabotage.
The price of something is not necessarily the function of the cost of producing it. It is the value to the buyer. Of course, you have edge cases on both sides of the scale, some things are of less value (to some markets) than the cost of producing them, and some things are of high value when producing them costs almost nothing. That's part of why free markets are so great, they are value-oriented and not only cost-based.
Wait…
LinkedIn shared a public profile a user filled out for the purposes of sharing.
Someone viewed the profile.
How exactly is it “personal data” who viewed the profile?
If I put my resume on my website, is my ISP required to tell me who visited my website? (The logs give technical data, but not the name of the person viewing.)
Personal data is data that relates to to you. What relates to you is the list of users who viewed your profile.
I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
Lots of things are like that. A list of things you have bought. Well, the things themselves are not personal data. The relationship is.
Wouldn't this apply to every social network? Or is this because LinkedIn shows a teaser for free and more detail for paid?
If you mean that Meta probably has a list of which users visited which other users and that they use it for internal stuff? Well, then Meta could argue they won’t tell you who visited you because they need to protect their privacy (harder for LinkedIn since they are selling that data so clearly they don’t care)
isn't this also a thing on dating apps
I was going to raise this question here. Then again, the only thing you might get is an identifier of the person that swiped left/right on you. You won't really be able to do much with that, though, unless you reverse-engineer the dating site's API and invoke it directly to access dating profiles. …which apps might be able to prevent by using device attestation / Google SafetyNet etc. (You can't easily extract the auth key required for the API.)
Not sure I follow the logic. The list of profiles I visit feels like it’s my data, not the owners of target profile. By that logic can I GDPR chrome for the browsing history of anyone who has visited my site? IANAL but I thought GDPR is about getting a copy of your data, not others.
The problem for linkedin is they try to simultaneously claim that it’s the visitors data and therefore they can’t disclose it at the same time as claiming its linkedin’s data so they can sell access to it
They claim they don't have to disclose it not that they can't.
Going by that logic, they shouldn't be selling your data to their premium users. Either way, LinkedIn is on the wrong footing.
They can spin it as "the list of profiles you visit is your data", this list they'll probably give you if requested, but in addition they're also willing to sell you others' data (the list of people who visit you).
Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.
It falls on its face as soon as they offer to sell that data to someone else, which is exactly what they're doing. Can't have it both ways.
Oh but they can and will continue to
"personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person" - GDPR article 4
Data often pertains to multiple people (trivial case: direct messages between two users); the rights of GDPR apply to your data, regardless of whether it also pertains to multiple others, subject to some restrictions to safeguard the rights of others. Those legal restrictions clearly don't apply because you could pay to obtain that access.
LinkedIn would need to prove in court that the list of users who visited your profile is not your data.
Additionally, your profile is undisputably your data. Per article 15 of the GDPR, you have a right to access "the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations".
I believe GDPR says you can access a copy of data they store about you, not that they can't sell it.
I think it's more like if you owned a blogspot site, and you're gdpr'ing the list of users who visited your site (given Google logged every single user who visited, and associated that visit specifically with you).
Linkedin is recording every person who visits your profile and keeps that in your user records, and they are already selling it back to you. The argument is that you have a right to that data.
Linkedin is arguing that this data needs to be protected for the privacy of those visiting your profile and the argument is that if they really believed that, they wouldn't sell it back to you, compromising that privacy anyway.
If Google approached me and offered me Chrome Premium that allows me to see the identities of everyone who has visited my site, I feel like we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Interesting, does that mean if you use google analytics you can demand the details google has about every user that hits your site?
I think the key point here is that LinkedIn distributes personal data of the profile owner to the visitor. That data is subject to GDPR, so the plaintiff assumes that they have the right to know who received that data from LinkedIn.
What kind of personal data of the website owner does google analytics distribute that makes that analogy work?
No, because your site is not a person, so data related to it is not protected under GDPR.
what if the site is just a personal blog?
There is still no personal data in Google Analytics? And even if there is, that data is public.
I don't quite get the "GDPR requires you to share with someone the personal details of people who happened to visit a webpage that you setup on a free website" angle here. I don't get how that's your data and not the data of the people who visited the page?
That seems to violate the GDPR more than the current state, no? If I accidentally click on your profile you're entitled to my name and employer and that's your data now? Makes no sense, other than from a "GDPR good, US tech bad!" angle, I guess.
It's both your data and that person's data.
(copied from my earlier comment) I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
Agree, I don't fully understand the argument that this would be the owning profiles data, and not either Linkedin's or the viewer's. Would you be entitled to search query data from Google because your website is in some query results, and Google has to provide you that metadata for free?
I believe that the case here is different. That would be true, say, for your substack page. But in this case, your "profile" is more than just a web page, it contains personal information, which albeit public, is your property according to the law. Therefore any interaction with it falls under article 15. Personally I would find it fantastic if LinkedIn is forced to make this feature available to all users. I can't see it but as a win for consumers and a loss for inducing payment through extraction of interrelational value.
Noyb basically built a logic trap linkedin can't squirm out of: either selling the visitor list to premium users is illegal or handing it over for free under article 15 is mandatory - pick one
[dupe] Some more on source: https://noyb.eu/en/linkedin-locks-your-gdpr-rights-behind-pa... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019775)
Linkedin, aka premium database for spear-phishing?
Linkedin is the best thing what happened for phishing since 4ever.
If you have a profile there, you're already lost. They gather your data and even network layout if you just open linkedin.
don't see the issue, the data of who visited my profile belongs first to the visitor and to me iff i pay for it. seems pretty clear, no?
No, that's the point. If the data pertains to you, it's yours. No "iff I pay for it".
wouldn't that mean every piece of cctv footage that has me in it also belongs to me? i don't see it (no pun intended).
I don’t think anyone has tested that in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if it should belong to you but fact that most CCTV footage is (or at least was) stored by small independent entities means that you aren’t aware that your CCTV data exists, or wouldn’t find it worthwhile to request it all.
It would be an interesting angle of attack against classic surveillance, though. If there are any vendors that store the video in some centralized system, so you can request it all at once.
But, I think there will be some hurdles, this case specifically relies on the fact that LinkedIn clearly doesn’t believe there’s any reason to keep this data private (they sell users access to it, after all).
You absolutely can request CCTV footage of you in the EEA. You need to specify time period with sufficient specificity, and how to identify you so they can ensure they are handing out footage of you, but you have a right to it.
It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
It’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
Oh, I assumed this was just about the views from the folks who hadn’t enabled the private viewing option.
It would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
In either case it must belong to one of the users, so I guess it will be good to clarify.
That is true in the EU in a number of circumstances. You can do a data access request for CCTV footage of yourself; I’ve successfully done this before, and some organizations give out CCTV footage this way often enough they have websites about their procedures. For organizations I know of, they blur other people in the footage.
Yes, of course. In European cities there are GDPR disclosures hanged on the lampposts on which CCTV cameras are mounted. The disclosure contains retention period and contact to data processing inspector where you can request the data. You probably need to specify the timestamps and haw to recognise you.
In commercial buildings the disclosure may hang on the wall besides main entrance.
Everything as designed.
exactly, but it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay.
if we assume there’s a directional graph with edges labeled as “visited”. what linkedin is offering is to traverse it backwards for a fee.
what they’re demanding is ludicrous. pure entitlement that would have horrible ramifications for all social media platforms.
should a gdpr export include who has unliked/unreposted your posts too? it definitely pertains to you.
"Pertains" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and you're using it wrong. The data about who viewed your profile pertains to you from the moment the visit happens. That's what that word means, so your first statement is false.
The other important detail is that LinkedIn already has processed this data that definitely pertains to you, whether you paid for it or not, and are trying to sell it to you. In fact, to quote the article, LinkedIn's argument for not giving it to the user is "on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence". LinkedIn isn't withholding viewer data to protect viewer privacy. We know this because they sell it. If the viewer's privacy interest were so compelling that it overrides your Article 15 right (which is what Noyb is referring to), it would also be compelling enough to prevent LinkedIn from selling that same data to Premium subscribers.
The argument being made for this specific feature (not the ones you added) is that you can't simultaneously claim the data is too privacy-sensitive to disclose under GDPR and then sell it as a product feature
> The argument being made for this specific feature
great display of intellectual honesty here.
> it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay
Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.