Were people honest, dannhätte Facebook not two billion, but rar 20,000 members – optimistically appreciated. After all, anyone who confirms that y have read and understood 70-page general terms and conditions at registration, Ifinsurance usually not done and simply continued to click, i.e. simply fib. Therefore, you should not use service at all. and Entsprechendwenige users ultimately know what furr processing of ir personal data, for example for studies or for advertising purposes, y actually zugestimmthaben exactly.
Blame yourself, Könnteman say. Reading helps. But in meantime not only Nutzerinnenund consumer protectionists, but also politicians increasingly recognize problem of vondatenschutzrechtlichen consent. Last week, District Court of Berlin declared that Facebook had to change its terms of use. Eight clauses were ineffective, including requirement for clear-term. In Belgium, network can no longer simply record browser behavior of users and in Spain it had to pay eineMillionenstrafe to Data protection Authority in September.
On Facebook you may nochverzichten, but without Google, smartphone and computer it is difficult to deny digital everyday life. "It is arises to be able to participate fully in society at all, if one eludes se services and technologies," says RobertRothmann from Institute of State and Administrative law of University of Vienna, interview with time online. "What can you expect from consumers and what is question of a sovereign intervention in sense of regulation?"
Most users don't even know what clauses re areIn order to make clear discrepancy between social reality and legal dogmatics, HabenRothmann and his colleagues made a representative survey on Facebook-Nutzerndurchgeführt, which is online time. A total of 1,019 ÖsterreichischeNutzerinnen were questioned in an online survey on ir usage behaviour and ihreInformierit. Their answers are unlikely to differ from those deutscherMitglieder.
78 percent of Befragtengaben to have not read or nurüberflogen general terms and conditions of Facebook during registration. Accordingly, only 37 percent of respondents know that y have given Facebook ir consent to collect data undweiterzuverarbeiten. 43 percent do not know that, and one in five even believed that y had not given this consent explicitly. This is not legally possible in Falleiner active use, authors of survey write.
The users are even less aware when it comes to individual data protection clauses of GTC. So, not even every tenth (nine percent) agreed to have Facebook use its name, profile picture, and personal information for ads. Something that, by way, belongs to Facebook's core business. Every second user even disputes consent. Only eight percent know dasspersonenbezogene data can be transferred to United States under privacy Shield. And that Manchezuvor shared data will be retained even after account has been deleted.
Only at DerKlarnamenpflicht (50 percent) and marking of or users (24 percent) respondents know at least some reason. The deviation let Sichdamit explain that se points "directly affect surfing behaviour volumein", it is said in survey. This sounds plausible, after all, selected names are always visible. DieDatenweiterleitung in background is not.
The imbalance between DenErwartungen user and actual terms of use Wirddeutlich if asked for ir hypotical consent. For example, 86Prozent would not agree to use for advertising purposes, 88Prozent not to transfer data to USA and 84 percent not demVerzicht to deletion. In case of a clear-name obligation, only about half (53Prozent) would be against it – apparently many people perceive that it is helpful to be on Facebook with real name on way.
Date Of Update: 22 February 2018, 12:04
