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

111–120 of 506 posts

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

#111

Post by Traster »

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.

This is absolutely not what's happening here though. Facebook absolutely could keep the data within the EU, they just think it's more profitable to move UK user data to California. Now, it's a valid question as to why the UK would allow their constituents most personal data to be transferred out of their jurisdiction, but that's up to the UK government. Facebook exists in hundreds of jurisdictions, it's not rare for them to move user data out of a jurisdiction or intio a jurisdiction. It's almost unique that a govenrment encourages that by reducing regulation though.

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

#112

Post by Retric »

treeman79 wrote: post #96
harry8 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "Regulatory Capture" and is a form of corruption. It is not /why/ regulation exists any more than the murder of Mr Floyd is why police exist. Regulatory capture is utterly rampant right now and a huge threat to democracy. This is true regardless of one's personal politics or beliefs about big vs small government or political party of preference. It's a cancer and more dangerous than people think.

Vote for people that want to reduce regulations. They’re easy to spot as news/entertainment all mocks them for being “mean” There is also the plainspeak people. Law written so that average people can understand them. Lawyers less needed.

Be careful of abstract calls to action without specifics. Many calls to “reduce taxes” actually mean a subsidy for some industry in the form of targeted tax breaks. Reducing regulation just as often targets insiders as it does actually improve things.

Often after a dictator takes power they do a crackdown on ‘corruption’ which has popular support. What their actually doing is consolidating power, but if you call it a corruption crackdown then it sounds like a great thing.

What you want is someone that says something specific not platitudes which can mean anything, and are impossible to hold people accountable. Remove a single regulation and they can call it a win. But fail to go to the moon, build a wall, reduce spending etc, and they just failed.

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

#113

Post by geodel »

hugi wrote: post #79
typenil wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am very skeptical that Facebook has ever acted in their users best interest. The EU privacy laws and the GDPR are a clearly beneficial law to citizens, protecting them against hostile companies.

Its fine that you are skeptic of FB. It is just that you seen unable to get that others can be very skeptical of EU regulations also.

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

#114

Post by jrochkind1 »

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.

Obviously the EU is a force against that, standardizing regulations across the whole EU. Facebook is changing how it relates to UK users because they have left the EU, of course.

At the moment there aren't really any significant contradictory laws/regulations I am aware of. Facebook could just choose to treat everyone as if they were protected by EU laws, but they choose not to. They didn't have to change how they relate to UK users, but they legally could and they chose to.

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

#115

Post by filoleg »

dantheman wrote: post #104
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?

They get shown ads that might be more relevant to them than just an ad picked at random, which might make them more likely to buy the product displayed in the ad. I guess that could lead to some extra harm to their wallets, but otherwise I am with you on this one.

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

#116

Post by privacylawthrow »

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…

1) Cookie notifications are not required by GDPR. They are required by national level implementation of the ePrivacy Directive.

2) Data portability is already a requirement under GDPR Article 20. The problem is that it requires competing services to work together to create interoperable systems or formats. That's really unlikely to happen without addition regulatory action mandating that competitors cooperate.

People will always gloss over privacy policies, privacy tools, and privacy disclosures. The reality is that people are concerned about privacy, but not concerned enough to make any changes. People concerned about the environment still get on planes and fly all over the world.

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

#117

Post by hugi »

dantheman wrote: post #104
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?

Have you been living under a rock for the past years?

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

#118

Post by fastball »

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 purpose of the US was to protect these rights for their own citizens / residents.

Protecting those rights for the entire world is a bit out-of-scope.

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

#120

Post by lmilcin »

trident5000 wrote: post #110
lmilcin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can only suspect that this made sense at some point in time when wealthy people started their day with a pipe and a magazine to read.
Post reply on HN