But is it possible to fix a leaking ship once it has been sailing in the sea of information? A new logo for the firm: http://www.stashofcode.com/facebook-the-leaking-ship/
Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
31–40 of 236 posts
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#32There's been so many articles about Facebook and the recent privacy catastrophe that I'm finding it hard to keep up. Does anybody actually know what their response will be to the GDPR? Are the privacy benefits from the GDPR going to be exclusive to EU citizens? This seems problematic. Whatever happens, Facebook has irreparably damaged my trust in their handling of user data and I think many on here would agree. My wi…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#33I think in the opposit we should urge US companies to fight against GDPR. Local foreign laws shouldn’t dictate how our companies should behave. Why not respecting speech laws in China or in Russia if we follow this precedent?
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#34I think in the opposit we should urge US companies to fight against GDPR. Local foreign laws shouldn’t dictate how our companies should behave. Why not respecting speech laws in China or in Russia if we follow this precedent?
It's obviously not suggesting using the GDPR whatever that may turn into in the future, but the contents of the GDPR.
Though I think you're right that they would fight it. It's one thing to have your competitors voluntarily adopt a privacy policy that makes them less profitable, but it's another matter if users flock to them and end up eroding the profit margins of the whole privacy violation industry.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone is wrongly accused of murder, and then he's found innocent, he was still a suspect during some time, so those articles are correct.
Yes those articles are correct, but do you think that's what most people would think when they read it? Most likely the articles on suspicion for murder are ranked top in the search results while the articles about being cleared are hard to find. Many people tend to be judgemental, or at least err on the side of caution. In this case, potential employers could feel "where there is smoke, there is fire" and would rath…
No. Google should rank the "Suspect found NOT GUILTY of murder" as the top, most relevant page, because that is truly the most relevant. If Google refuses to rank this the top, it's out of sheer laziness, just like how they refused to fix the subversive content in Youtube Kids "because algorithms". If they did this in the first place, I think most people wouldn't care so much.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#36Maybe it’s my American DNA but I don’t want European laws. I don’t suspect this to be a popular sentiment here.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction.
> EU residents, not citizens. It's an important distinction. Sorry if this is obvious. I haven't been following the details of this. Does that mean there is no protection for EU citizens while they are outside the EU?
[deleted]
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think allowing the police to remove their errors from the Internet is a good thing.
Who said anything about the police? The GDPR does not say that the police has the right remove stuff. It allows courts to rule that a company must comply to a removal order.
It’s worth noting that around 85% of requests based on right to be forgotten were from public figures and institutions in 2016.
The legitimate cases are rare.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
> both are infringing 1st amendment
The First Amendment protects you from the government. Facebook censoring you is not prohibited by the First Amendment. More broadly, I don’t see how GDPR interferes with one’s right to lawful political speech.
Re: Facebook urged to make GDPR its “baseline standard” globally
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really comparing GDPR to Chinese speech laws?
Yes, both are infringing 1st amendment. It’s not because GDPR seems more acceptable than it’s not built on bad premises.
I'm curious. Can you give an example of where this would infringe on the 1st amendment?