![emily wants to play rules emily wants to play rules](https://i.imgur.com/ayA32S9.jpg)
to carry on the "legitimate" activity of (behaviorally?) targeting propaganda at voters.
![emily wants to play rules emily wants to play rules](https://stonemaiergames.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Wingspan-core-feature-image-1024x941.jpg)
A "foundation" or an "association" with a political "aim" sounds like something any campaign group or vested interest could set up - i.e. In a Q&A offering further detail on the proposal, the Commission lists a set of requirements that it says anyone making use of political targeting and amplification will need to comply with, which includes having an internal policy on the use of such techniques maintaining records of the targeting and use of personal data and recording the source of said personal data - so at best it seems to be hoping to burden propagandists with the need to create and maintain a plausible paper trail.īecause it is also allowing a further carve-out to allow for political targeting - writing: "Targeting could also be allowed in the context of legitimate activities of foundations, associations or not-for-profit bodies with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union aim, when it targets their own members." So it's not clear why the Commission believes politically vested interests hell-bent on influencing elections are going to play by a privacy rule-book that almost no online advertisers operating in the region currently do, even the ones that are only trying to get people to buy useless plastic trinkets or 'detox' teas. However the claimed 'ban' does not apply if "explicit consent" is obtained from the person whose sensitive data is to be exploited to better target them with propaganda - and online 'consents' to ad targeting are already a total trashfire of non-compliance in the region.