LinkedIn profile visitor lists belong to the people, says Noyb(theregister.com) |
LinkedIn profile visitor lists belong to the people, says Noyb(theregister.com) |
So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.
> LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence.
Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection
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'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.
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".
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.
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.)
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.
Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.
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.
What kind of personal data of the website owner does google analytics distribute that makes that analogy work?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
great display of intellectual honesty here.
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".
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.
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).
It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
In commercial buildings the disclosure may hang on the wall besides main entrance.
Everything as designed.