In that situation, the third-party that is actively collecting and transmitting the data becomes a controller and is subject to regulation.
And yet they may have no direct interaction with the user/data subject, who may not even be aware that they exist, so this model is still flawed.
"Data hoovering" is a misconception that allows millions of businesses who actively send customer data to Google/FB to shift privacy criticism onto the platforms.
I would have much more sympathy for this point of view if the likes of Google and Facebook were transparent with businesses integrating with them about what that really means in practice. For example, if we did a survey of local stores with simple websites that include any Facebook asset on their site, how many of them do you think could accurately describe the implications in terms of tracking their users? What about sites that use Google Fonts? I'm not even talking about asking businesses to actively upload their user contact details for targeting or deliberate tracking like Google Analytics or Facebook pixels here, just the incorporation of any third party resource into a website.
It's also important to say that this isn't just about Google and Facebook. Many third party resources you might incorporate into a site for some reasonable purpose could also be used for tracking, while the site operators may or may not be fully aware of what is being done and the visitors may not be aware of the resources at all. Think of a CDN used to improve performance or a payment service that recommends including its scripts across all pages on a site to feed into risk analysis, for example.
The general problem is the same in all of these cases. The way the technology actually works doesn't match with the way authorities are attempting to regulate it. Unless you're willing to interpret the current regulations strongly enough that some behaviours with legitimate uses are also effectively prohibited across the entire Web (at least within your jurisdiction) I'm not sure you can ever square this circle as a regulator operating within the current frameworks.
And yet they may have no direct interaction with the user/data subject, who may not even be aware that they exist, so this model is still flawed.
"Data hoovering" is a misconception that allows millions of businesses who actively send customer data to Google/FB to shift privacy criticism onto the platforms.
I would have much more sympathy for this point of view if the likes of Google and Facebook were transparent with businesses integrating with them about what that really means in practice. For example, if we did a survey of local stores with simple websites that include any Facebook asset on their site, how many of them do you think could accurately describe the implications in terms of tracking their users? What about sites that use Google Fonts? I'm not even talking about asking businesses to actively upload their user contact details for targeting or deliberate tracking like Google Analytics or Facebook pixels here, just the incorporation of any third party resource into a website.
It's also important to say that this isn't just about Google and Facebook. Many third party resources you might incorporate into a site for some reasonable purpose could also be used for tracking, while the site operators may or may not be fully aware of what is being done and the visitors may not be aware of the resources at all. Think of a CDN used to improve performance or a payment service that recommends including its scripts across all pages on a site to feed into risk analysis, for example.
The general problem is the same in all of these cases. The way the technology actually works doesn't match with the way authorities are attempting to regulate it. Unless you're willing to interpret the current regulations strongly enough that some behaviours with legitimate uses are also effectively prohibited across the entire Web (at least within your jurisdiction) I'm not sure you can ever square this circle as a regulator operating within the current frameworks.