The article is about proposed secrecy regarding the Irish Data Protection Commission, "Section 26A would make most reporting about procedures or decisions by the DPC a crime."
It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal.
Data protection authorities in any country that matters are kept underfunded or on an otherwise short leash (Netherlands is no different, we might as well not have one at all for all the positive things it does ... not ... do). Not sure the German one is as bad, but then which big business decided to headquarter in DE? Ireland and the Netherlands have better tax schemes apparently. I'm not surprised they're doing as little as possible in Ireland, but I would be surprised if they actually said it's fine to make one-sided contract amendments
I find that particular one even more sensational and less objective.
> the DPC simply ignored the unlawful revenue made by Meta and claimed that "the Commission is unable to ascertain an estimation of the matters" and that it is therefore "unable to take these matters into account". This is despite having the power to demand such information from Meta under Article 58(1) GDPR.
> Max [says] "We all know about Meta's enormous revenue. It's astonishing that this was not taken into account by the DPC.
Apples and oranges. DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing. Max says "but look at how filthy rich they are! Take it all!!" 10/10 logic
The latter logic is what gets these things overturned
(I'm no fan of Facebook's and would be perfectly happy to see their services banned from the EU market altogether until they comply with article 8 of our human rights convention, which GDPR helps protect, but I do try to keep an objective perspective)
> DPC says they don't know how much more money they made by doing this illegal thing
I would agree that the waters might be murky in a business spanning multiple verticals or offering multiple products.
But in case of Facebook, the only business they have is targeted advertising, so it's safe to assume that any EU-sourced revenue is directly as a result of operating unlawfully and breaching the GDPR?
It doesn't say that DPC ruled adding data processing purposes to contracts after the fact to be legal.
Data protection authorities in any country that matters are kept underfunded or on an otherwise short leash (Netherlands is no different, we might as well not have one at all for all the positive things it does ... not ... do). Not sure the German one is as bad, but then which big business decided to headquarter in DE? Ireland and the Netherlands have better tax schemes apparently. I'm not surprised they're doing as little as possible in Ireland, but I would be surprised if they actually said it's fine to make one-sided contract amendments