Avast Company she got from the Office for the Protection of Personal Data (ÚOOÚ) – a record by Czech standards – a fine of 351 million crowns. For selling users’ personal data for marketing purposes.
Instead of protecting its clients from online threats and attacks, Avast sold the personal data of roughly hundreds of millions of them. In addition, he did not fully inform the user about it.
At the same time, the authority emphasized in the decision that Avast is one of the leading experts in cyber security that offers the public tools to protect data and privacy.
“Its customers could not have expected that this particular company would pass on their personal data, i.e. data on the basis of which not only their identity could be ascertained, but also, for example, their interests, preferences, place of residence, assets, profession and other data related to their privacy ,” said Jiří Kaucký, chairman of the ÚOOÚ, regarding the decision.
The second topic with societal implications is the behavior of some large internet players, for example the company Meta (operator of Facebook) or even the Czech internet leader Seznam.cz. This is an approach known as “Pay or OK” – the client pays for using the website with money or with his data.
If a person chooses the second option, he can still freely use the service, his personal data, including the user profile, socio-demographic data and Internet behavior, but it allows for additional monetization. There are plenty of people who will use them to target advertising and marketing.
Shown applies
Both cases are seemingly about the same thing: the attempt of large technology companies to get rich on their clients’ data. However, they differ in one essential point. And it is precisely on this difference that we can well describe the current, in my opinion somewhat overstretched, perception of personal data protection and privacy.
What is the main difference between the Avast case and the “Pay or OK” principle? Above all, in the transparency and credibility of communication with our own clients.
At Avast, silence, obfuscation and hammering played a key role, especially towards clients and the public. Maybe that’s why Avast a few months ago got for the same fine from the American authorities, this time in the amount of 16.5 million dollars (about 387 million CZK). And for example in the Netherlands facing a class action lawsuit by users.
For website and service operators who choose to go the “Pay or OK” route, communication is usually more open. They clearly tell their users that they want to make money from the website. Either the client pays them for access to the content with money, or by the subsequent use of their personal data.
However, even the “Pay or OK” principle has certain loopholes. In particular, the question of the freedom of consent given, when the only alternative is – apart from refusing a widely used service and therefore the threat of a certain kind of social restriction – paying money. The difference, however, is in that openness.
We’re missing something here
But it seems that even transparent options to choose from are not enough. It shows recommendations of European authorities for the protection of personal data received by Meta; namely to offer clients a third option in the form of access to the social network for free and without the use of data for marketing.
In other words, the authorities perceive protective regulation as the main remedy for the behavior of business companies. And she evaluates practically everything from her point of view. Alternative services and the possibility of the user’s free will and decision are not so important in their thinking…
What does it say? About the state’s effort to protect people at all costs. Sometimes even in front of him. The question remains whether it is even defensible in this particular case.
Did we interest you? Continue…
