upvote
In Europe, unlike the US, consent has to be real. It's bad faith to offer ten pages of stuff no one reads and no one understands and interpret a click as consent. EU law generally requires a good faith offer and informed consent.
reply
Do you think the "allow photo access? yes/no" dialogue has ten pages of legalese? I promise, it does not. Really unclear what Meta should do differently.
reply
It does not.

But if you say "We need to access your photos so you can share a few with your friends" and then proceed to upload all the photo's, you are in violation.

Which is similar to what happened here and what the Italian judge ruled to be illegal.

reply
> But if you say "We need to access your photos so you can share a few with your friends" and then proceed to upload all the photo's, you are in violation.

> Which is similar to what happened here

In fact, it has nothing to do with what happened here; why lie? No photos were uploaded by the feature the fine was assessed for.

reply
Just asking 'Allow photo access' is not enough under the GDPR, you have to ask consent for every different purpose that you are going to use the data for. The case is exactly about this:

Facebook requested access to users' photo galleries through a single app-wide authorisation. According to the Italian regulator, a preceding notice did not make clear that this would also allow Facebook to generate suggestions based on photos in their gallery.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwn83gxemk35o

They should have explicitly asked separate consent to generate suggestions based on photos.

They know this. They just made the judgement that they could get away with an 'oopsie' or a fine that is just doing cost of business. These >1B fines are good, make them feel it, so that the next time they won't violate the GDPR.

reply
> They should have explicitly asked separate consent to generate suggestions based on photos.

I mean, this is kind of nuts. Should they ask consent every time you click to navigate to a new page, just in case you didn't want to see it? What level of granularity is acceptable?

reply
mate you are missing the point, if you have a photo editing app and you ask for consent to edit a photo, that's not consent to also use the photo to do something else with it
reply
The "something else" in this metaphor is "suggest to the user they might want to edit a photo."
reply
It's not, Facebook processes the photos on their end and now also apparently feeds it to generative models to offer something (don't remember what exactly, managed to avoid this). At least that's what some options said last time I went exploring the app's settings page.
reply
This case was not about generative models at all.
reply
Well then the next one might be. What I'm saying is that, per my recent memory, the options in Facebook settings menu around camera roll suggestions don't, in any way, even suggest the processing might be happening on-device only.
reply
no, the "something else" was sending far more photos to their servers than the one they were, in the methaphor, "editing".
reply
No. The Italians are not accusing Meta of sending the photos in question to their servers -- just suggesting to users they might want to upload them.
reply
so you're saying it's ok and consensual if I asked to get a drink from your fridge, and just ate all your food as well?
reply
I'm saying, if you're going to my fridge, it's ok to ask me if I want a drink too.
reply
> I mean, this is kind of nuts. Should they ask consent every time you click to navigate to a new page, just in case you didn't want to see it? What level of granularity is acceptable?

I think your comment is obtuse and that you did not actually try to understand what the GDPR is saying but anyway: no, it doesn't concern itself about that dimension at all. There would on the other hand need to be new informed consent from the user before their data can be shared with new parties or used/transmitted/processed/stored for new purposes or extended time/space scopes.

reply
The data was not transmitted/processed/stored in this case! Privacy was not in any way impacted. So the question remains, how granular is a "new" use? Do you need to individually consent for every photo you take? Is it even possible for Europeans to consent to a class of actions? What scope is permissible and what isn't? These are seemingly unanswered questions.
reply
GDPR advocates always assume that their own interpretation of the law is aligned with the court, but obviously we don't know that's the case until after the trial
reply
Meta has a history of using simple features, like sending a photo to a contact in WhatsApp, to gain access to the user’s entire library for other purposes. This is illegal in Europe.

They use dark patterns and deception, and without knowing the details here I suspect Meta is guilty.

Meta’s response even stinks of these dark patterns, glossing over informed consent.

reply
Yes it says so in the article. Users gave permission to access photos for one purpose and Meta abused it to access all photos for other purposes. They tried to weasel out of it by using a fine print "and other purposes" in the consent dialog, it didn't work.
reply
I had an HMD Nokia Android phone where the camera app had Facebook integration. It reached out to their servers every time the app started despite my not ever having had a Facebook account. I wouldn't be surprised if they also used this backdoor to access photos via the camera app's permissions.

Suffice to say, Nokia is on my blacklist of companies to never patronize again.

reply
This explains a bit better what the issue is: https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/facebooks-data-protection-reg...

TL;DR: they didn't thoroughly explain the users what they were consenting to when giving the app access to the gallery.

reply
WhatsApp has a similar issue. You can't share just one photo, you have to give it access to all photos.
reply
This isn't the case for me on Android anyway. You can turn off access for media & photos in settings, and then yes, it nags you to enable it, but there's still two ways to send photos:

* either share from an outside app, e.g. the gallery, choose "share", choose "whatsapp". This gives it access only to the photo you shared from the other app.

* and in Android's settings you can give Whatsapp access to a subset of photos, then it works normally on only that subset. Then you can always add more from outside that set, by pressing the paperclip icon when you write the message, there you see the "gallery option", then you see the limited subset of photos you gave access to, at the bottom right you have a folder picker icon which opens the system's gallery picker view (google photos in my case), where you can see all photos, and it can then access that photo too.

* if you chose no access to media at all, but if whatsapp has camera access, click on the paperclip icon in the message box, then, "camera", then the "gallery" icon, there you get a screen prompting for gallery access, but on the bottom right it has the same folder icon that gives access to the system photo picker, which again will only allow access to the photo you pick there.

The first two cases are pretty low-friction.

reply
Hm, at least on iPhone I used to be able to allow only some photos.
reply
> You can't share just one photo, you have to give it access to all photos

Works for me on an alternate Android OS without photos permission, but it's buggy (possibly on purpose) and often requires doing the sharing intent action twice.

WhatsApp only has "Network", "Notifications" and "Sensors" permission on my phone

reply
They didn't
reply
[flagged]
reply
IME, many, if not most, meta employees (including me) are neutral to negative on the behavior of the company.
reply
The fines should come out of your paychecks.
reply
That's literally what RSU is
reply
> The investigation, launched in 2025, established that access to a user's camera roll is requested with a single permission for the entire app, which the authority said covers multiple features with different needs. The authorization request was preceded by a generic warning that didn't allow users to understand that they were authorizing picture and video suggestions, the authority said.

https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-hits-meta-with-e805m-f...

reply
That's kind of ridiculous though? Should there be multiple permissions for every different thing the app might want to do with your camera roll? Should a user constantly have to affirm access to the camera roll while using the app? Once should be enough!
reply
> Should there be multiple permissions for every different thing the app might want to do with your camera roll?

Yes? Just because I want to share some pictures through an app doesn't mean I want it to go and do anything it wants with any picture on the device.

reply
If I share a single picture with friends I don’t want the app to then go through all the photos I’ve ever taken in my life.
reply
Or, you know, just don't aim to go through user's photos by default and just ask consent in the case a user enables/uses a feature that requires a photo to be sent to Facebook?
reply
The photos weren't sent to Facebook! This fine was for a feature that did not share any data with Facebook.
reply
When all you have is a huge hole in your national budget, everything looks like a finable offence.
reply
Only for Facebook, lmao. Smaller apps without deep pockets aren't held to this standard.
reply