Latest news with #TanyaO'Carroll
The Guardian
25-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
One brave woman wrenched back control of her data from the tech giants. Now, go and do the same
Social media companies are the global corporate giants of our time. They make vast profits and hold great influence over our governments and institutions. However, the inconvenient truth is that they have only managed to become so powerful and profitable because they help themselves to our personal data. These are mostly US companies – but they extract and exploit vast amounts of data, and with that data economic value, from British citizens. At a time when many are struggling with the cost of living, it is paradoxical that vast amounts of money are being made by the richest companies in history from the data being provided by the same people. This data often contains extremely intimate personal information, which is then used to influence people's behaviour. Despite protections under British law, the social media companies have been allowed to get away with these activities largely unchallenged. They need to be reminded that they are not too big to have to abide by our laws. That is why the news that Tanya O'Carroll, a human rights campaigner from London, has reached a settlement in her landmark case against Facebook's parent company, Meta, is a most important development. Four years ago, O'Carroll wrote to Meta stating that she wished to exercise her right under Europe's general data protection regulation or GDPR to object to the processing of her personal data. The law is clear that the right to object is absolute when it comes to targeted advertising, and people are entitled to exercise the right free of charge. O'Carroll was worried about the extremely detailed and private information that Facebook was using to target advertisements at her – including matters such as her family relationships, financial interests and political views. This wasn't information that Tanya had provided to Facebook, but characteristics it had inferred about her based on her activity online. Now, just days before going to trial, Meta has agreed, for the first time, to stop targeting advertising to a user, based on their personal data. O'Carroll's case is certainly a watershed: it suddenly opens up the possibility for millions of people across the UK to follow in her footsteps, and object to the processing of their personal data by Meta. The nonprofit organisation Ekō is running a campaign to help people do just that. By using their right to object, people could trigger a change in their relationship with tech giants. Instead of continuing to passively be the product that these companies sell to advertisers for vast profit, social media users may now be able to force these companies to rethink the value they offer them. Locking in users and huge, seemingly guaranteed, profits have long created hubris among the social media platforms – and, in recent years, a sharp decline in the quality of the product that they offer. This could therefore be a significant moment in the short history of social media in our country. It is crucial that our courts and regulators now robustly enforce the law. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) intervened in support of O'Carroll in the run-up to this outcome. Now, if Meta starts to push back, the ICO must enforce the right for others to object. But the government could still get in the way. The tech giants have considerable influence over politics around the world, and the UK is no different. The government has suggested that it will create a favourable policy environment for these US companies to do what they like with British consumers. The decision to replace the head of the Competition and Markets Authority with a former Amazon boss looks like a step in this direction and this must not happen with the ICO and other regulators. It is also crucial that potential legislative changes under the data (use and access) bill do not undermine the ICO's independence. If the law is now properly enforced, O'Carroll winning her right to privacy against one of the wealthiest companies in history represents a significant tip in the balance of power between social media platforms and ordinary people in our country. It is also a reminder of the importance of public interest cases, and how crucial it is that they are adequately funded and thus able to be brought. For too long Meta has used its size and influence to lobby its way out of accountability. The law exists to protect citizens and uphold their rights. It is high time technology giants were obliged to respect these rights. Dominic Grieve was Conservative MP for Beaconsfield from 1997 to 2019, and attorney general from 2010 to 2014
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meta considering subscription option for UK Facebook users
Meta is considering a subscription option for UK Facebook users after it agreed to stop targeting a campaigner with adverts based on her personal data. The technology company said the social network it owns and Instagram were 'free for British consumers because of personalised advertising'. It comes after Meta agreed to stop targeting adverts at human rights campaigner Tanya O'Carroll after she filed a lawsuit against Facebook's collection of personal details. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said on Saturday that its position was that Meta was 'processing Ms O'Carroll's personal data for direct marketing purposes'. It added that profiling related to those purposes meant Ms O'Carroll had the 'absolute right to object to such processing' under UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The ICO said 'organisations must respect people's choices about how their data is used', adding that it would 'continue to engage with Meta on this issue'. Ms O'Carroll wrote on LinkedIn: 'In settling my case, Meta has agreed to stop processing my personal data for direct marketing purposes. In non-legalese, that means I will no longer be shown surveillance-ads on Facebook. 'I believe this is a victory not just for me but for every UK and EU citizen as it paves the way for the right to object to be used to stand up to surveillance-advertising across the web. 'I applaud the ICO for their rational and principled application of the law in their intervention in my case and for publicly confirming they will back up other UK citizens who wish to exercise their right to object in the context of online targeted ads.' Meta said it was 'pleased to draw a line under this long-running case'. A spokesperson said: 'We fundamentally disagree with the claims made by Ms O'Carroll, no business can be mandated to give away its services for free. 'We take our UK GDPR obligations seriously and provide robust settings and tools for users to control their data and advertising preferences. 'Facebook and Instagram cost a significant amount of money to build and maintain, and these services are free for British consumers because of personalised advertising. 'Like many internet services, we are exploring the option of offering people based in the UK a subscription and will share further information in due course.' Meta already offers an advert-free subscription option to users in the EU. An ICO spokesperson said: 'People have the right to object to their personal information being used for direct marketing, and we have been clear that online targeted advertising should be considered as direct marketing. 'Organisations must respect people's choices about how their data is used. This means giving users a clear way to opt out of their data being used in this way. 'If people believe that an organisation is not complying with their request to stop processing their data, they can file a complaint to us. We will continue to engage with Meta on this issue.'
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meta agrees to stop surveillance of people's data in landmark case
Meta has agreed to stop surveillance of people's data to bombard them with adverts in a landmark case. The company, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has agreed to stop targeting advertising to a campaigner as part of a negotiated settlement after she took them to court for abusing her legal rights. The settlement could set a precedent for millions of users of social media and search engines to prevent tech firms from hoovering up their data in order to target them with personalised adverts and marketing material. Tanya O'Carroll, a senior fellow at Foxglove legal, a non-profit company campaigning for fair treatment online, said: 'This settlement represents not just a victory for me, but for everyone who values their fundamental right to privacy. 'None of us signed up to be trapped into decades of surveillance advertising, held hostage by the threat of losing the ability to connect with our loved ones online. Finally, this shows that we all have a right to access social media without paying with invasive levels of personal data.' The case, the first of its kind, was settled just days before it was due in court. Ms O'Carroll asserted that Meta breached Article 21(2) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provides individuals with an unqualified right to object to the processing of their data for targeted advertising. Meta had argued its advertising system did not target individuals directly, but rather groups, and therefore did not fall under the same legal requirements. However, in a mutually agreed statement, Meta said it would not display any direct marketing ads to Ms O'Carroll on Facebook, would not process her data for direct marketing purposes and would not 'undertake such processing (including any profiling) to the extent it is related to such direct marketing'. The UK's data watchdog, the Information Commissioner, staged a rare intervention in the litigation and described its position as supportive of Ms Carroll's case, signalling that it had the potential to pave the way for the right to object for others. A report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on online platforms and digital advertising found that Facebook 'uses default settings to nudge people into using their services and giving up their data'. This included the requirement to 'accept personalised advertising as a condition for using the service'. It also pointed out this was not what Facebook users really wanted as only 13 per cent said they were happy to share their data in return for relevant ads. The settlement concluded a near four-year legal dispute in which human rights advocate Ms O'Carroll argued that Meta is legally required to allow people to opt out of surveillance-based advertising – a request the company had previously refused. Dominic Grieve, former UK attorney general, said: 'Big Tech companies should not be above the law. If companies like Meta want to operate in the UK, they should be directed to follow the same legal standards as everyone else – respecting people's privacy rights, not exploiting them at any cost.' Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: 'We should not have to trade away our privacy to access essential online services. The real solution is to break down the monopoly walled gardens. We need a vibrant social media ecosystem where people can freely choose platforms that respect their privacy and align with their values.' Meta has been contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
22-03-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Meta agrees to stop surveillance in landmark case
Meta has agreed to stop surveillance of people's data to bombard them with adverts in a landmark case. The company, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, agreed to stop targeting advertising to a campaigner as part of a negotiated settlement after she took them to court for abusing her legal rights. The settlement could set a precedent for millions of users of social media and search engines to prevent tech firms from hoovering up their data in order to target them with personalised adverts and marketing material. Tanya O'Carroll, a senior fellow at Foxglove legal, a non-profit company campaigning for fair treatment online, said: 'This settlement represents not just a victory for me, but for everyone who values their fundamental right to privacy. 'None of us signed up to be trapped into decades of surveillance advertising, held hostage by the threat of losing the ability to connect with our loved ones online. Finally, this shows that we all have a right to access social media without paying with invasive levels of personal data.' The case, the first of its kind, was settled just days before it was due in court. Ms O'Carroll asserted that Meta breached Article 21(2) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provides individuals with an unqualified right to object to the processing of their data for targeted advertising. Meta had argued its advertising system did not target individuals directly, but rather groups, and therefore did not fall under the same legal requirements. However, in a mutually agreed statement, Meta said it would not display any direct marketing ads to Ms O'Carroll on Facebook, would not process her data for direct marketing purposes and would not 'undertake such processing (including any profiling) to the extent it is related to such direct marketing'. 'Big Tech companies should not be above the law' The Information Commissioner, the UK's data watchdog, staged a rare intervention in the litigation and described its position as supportive of Ms Carroll's case, signalling that it had the potential to pave the way for the right to object for others. It said Ms O'Carroll had an 'absolute right' to object to her data being used for direct marketing and profiling. A report by the Competition and Markets Authority on online platforms and digital advertising found that Facebook 'uses default settings to nudge people into using their services and giving up their data'. This included the requirement to 'accept personalised advertising as a condition for using the service'. It also pointed out this was not what Facebook users really wanted as only 13 per cent said they were happy to share their data in return for relevant ads. The settlement concluded a near four-year legal dispute in which human rights advocate Ms O'Carroll argued that Meta is legally required to allow people to opt out of surveillance-based advertising – a request the company had previously refused. Dominic Grieve, former UK attorney general, said: 'Big Tech companies should not be above the law. If companies like Meta want to operate in the UK, they should be directed to follow the same legal standards as everyone else – respecting people's privacy rights, not exploiting them at any cost.' Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: 'We should not have to trade away our privacy to access essential online services. The real solution is to break down the monopoly walled gardens. We need a vibrant social media ecosystem where people can freely choose platforms that respect their privacy and align with their values.'
