Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 506 posts

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#101

Post by treeman79 »

typenil wrote: post #73
oblio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not naive, that's why we have laws. Without laws, the people/groups you mention would just use the law of the jungle - might makes right - to get what they want. At least with laws they have to somewhat accommodate this process to get what they want, frequently compromising along the way. I'm not saying that all laws are perfect, but let's not get overwhelming cynicism get the best of us.

Being skeptical of the motivations of those who write and lobby for regulation is not overly cynical - it's a recognition of reality. The less skeptical we are, the more self-serving regulation we'll get.

Had a boss that tried very hard to get us to develop some Voice verification system.

Apparently he knew all the right senators to get a regulation passed making it so all health companies would be forced to license our software.

Wasn’t technically feasible at the time. Might be now.

Freaked me out as to how evil it was.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#102

Post by parasubvert »

cle wrote: post #84
Sargos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to be nearing peak big tech which does conflict a bit with the nation state system but looking at technology today it does seem to be a temporary phenomenon with light at the end of the tunnel. Decentralized protocols that operate at the internet layer above the interference of nation states are being built and deployed today and while they are still in their infancy they have a clear path to providing a neut…

Could you elaborate on what those protocols are, how they help, what their weaknesses are, and what work remains? I'm really curious to learn more about this area. (Even just a link summarizing this would be awesome.)

The closest thing to this currently is Mastodon. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr...

There are a lot of open hard technology and business problems to make decentralized systems act as good as centralized systems. In short, The web architecture (HTTP, HTML, URI, MIME) inherently is decentralized for consumption but encourages centralized updates. Many years ago I wrote about these technical challenges and some ideas for solutions on “the Write Side of the Web”.

https://www.slideshare.net/StuC/ill-see-you-on-the-write-sid...

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#103

Post by FactolSarin »

stickfigure wrote: post #11

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

For social networking companies like Facebook, is that bad? Shouldn't each county be able to enforce the things that are important to them (ie, outlawing Holocaust denial or allowing more nudity) rather than the entire world bowing to US mores and customs?

Nothing really changes for the rest of the web. You're allowed to stand up your own webserver if you want.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#104

Post by dantheman »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #23

Free exchange among peoples is alive and well. It is easier today to make a website and share anything than it has ever been in the history of civilization. All this is is the reining in of a few greedy corporations that offer information-sharing platforms in exchange for exploitation. New communities will pop up, and old ones resurface.

How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#105

Post by parasubvert »

Sargos wrote: post #60
stickfigure wrote: post #11

This is the balkanization of the internet. We've lived through a brief period of free exchange among peoples, but it's soon over. I predict only one viable future for all technology companies, big and small: Pick a single national jurisdiction, keep your employees and servers inside it.

We seem to be nearing peak big tech which does conflict a bit with the nation state system but looking at technology today it does seem to be a temporary phenomenon with light at the end of the tunnel. Decentralized protocols that operate at the internet layer above the interference of nation states are being built and deployed today and while they are still in their infancy they have a clear path to providing a neut…

I share your optimism, though I think there remain significant economic and technology headwinds that have been slowing down the development of decentralized web technologies.

I spoke about the technical considerations several years ago at the W3C annual conference: https://www.slideshare.net/StuC/ill-see-you-on-the-write-sid...

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#106

Post by hvdijk »

mrtksn wrote: post #64
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizenship matters not. Only residency. Just because I'm a Britsh person living in the US doesn't mean I'm not subject to the death penalty or am exempt from having to buy health insurance, for example.

Okay, what does it mean “residency”? In the UK there’s no address registry where you declare your address. EU citizen works in the UK for 2 years then goes to Turkey for a vacation but likes the place so much, decides to stay for longer when still remote working for the same London company.Also connects through VPN because the Turks love banning websites. Where this person residence is? Are the UK, USA, EU or Turkish…

For the UK, basic rules that cover residency for most are listed at https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/residence>, with a link to the full rules for those not covered by the basic rules.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#107

Post by robertlagrant »

dmitriid wrote: post #40
KukiAirani wrote: post #29

Personally, I think the GDPR cookie notifications have severely degraded the user experience of the web. I also think it's become just another "Terms and Conditions" - something that people reflexively accept because they want to get on with using a product. Future regulations with teeth, but don't exist yet, are things like: - Data portability: I should be able to export my entire Facebook account in full in a stand…

> Personally, I think the GDPR cookie notifications have severely degraded the user experience of the web. The absolute vast majority of cookie banners are actually illegal under GDPR. One downside of GDPR isn't the banners, it's inaction by EU authorities which should've cracked down on these practices long ago. 1. Cookies essential for the functionality of your website (such as session cookies) don't need consent,…

I would love a plain-English, official website statement to this effect.

Also one that didn't just talk about cookies. What if I enable tracking code in my mobile app? That's not cookie-driven.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#108

Post by robertlagrant »

p_l wrote: post #85
vrperson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is meant by 4)? So users have the right to see a web site without ads? I think if users don't consent, you should be allowed to block their access to your web site?

They can see ads. You just can't process their PII for them. You know, it used to be that ads were targeted by where they were shown, not by who was looking . That's a return to that model.

A tracking ID isn't PII, though?

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#109

Post by humanrebar »

furyg3 wrote: post #94
typenil wrote: post #80

> U.S. courts have held that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches do not apply to non-citizens overseas. In effect it's harder and harder to find cases where the 4th amendment protections apply to US citizens, either.

I never understood this. If the freedoms outlined in the constitution are universal and inalienable, shouldn't the US also apply them, well, universally? Like do you believe in them or not?

The Constitution is based on inalienable rights (speech, worship, privacy, etc.), but it's not a list of inalienable rights as such. There's nothing inalienable about presidential succession, bicameral legislatures, or the electoral college, for instance.

Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

#110

Post by trident5000 »

lmilcin wrote: post #13
chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulations exist to protect consumers and other companies from accusative behaviors. I think this is possibly a bit naive. Regulations also exist to protect powerful people's businesses, to push personal agendas, and to further political aims even if those are not actually in the interests of any consumers. Also sometimes people think they're making a regulation to protect consumers, but actually it makes things w…

It even is sometimes weaponized to help fight competition. For example, by making it expensive to conduct a certain type of business and requiring even higher entry costs (things like certification, licences, etc.) it actually favors large, established businesses. Case in point: Uber suggesting minimum wage for their workers, some time ago. Think about this, the company refuses to recognize them as their work force b…

My favorite is the NY LLC publishing requirement. To start a business you must publish that you started a business for 6 consecutive weeks which costs thousands. Wonder what back door corrupt deal was made on that one.
Post reply on HN