Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

121–130 of 506 posts

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

#121

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 re…

I don’t think this is correct. EU is pretty strong in favour of data localisation, UK is not. Moving customers to California doesn’t mean they are no longer under UK privacy rules, which of course are identical to EU privacy rules (for the foreseeable future, could change of course).

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

#122
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.

Got a better one. Try to buy a car in the USA, directly from a manufacturer.

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

#123
post #94
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?

It's not a contradiction to say that you have inalienable rights and that it is not the duty of the US government to protect them.

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

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Points to another issue that there is no active effort to reduce old laws so they just pile up.

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

#125

I thought the plan was that on Brexit all existing EU laws would become UK law, until we decide the change them. Did that not happen in the end?

Yes, that's also my understanding, but EU GDPR refers to data being inside and outside the territory of the EU. So, transferring your data between the EU and UK will mean you are (now) crossing a data border. That's a change. I understand that GDPR will immediately split into EU GDPR, and UK GDPR.

Yes. And that also means protections remain the same regardless of this move from Ireland to US jurisdiction.

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

#126
post #3

Tech companies, or any company for that matter, will do what is best for themselves. Regulations exist to protect consumers and other companies from accusative behaviors. Remove the regulation and the 'we care for your privacy' message disappears with it. Because they never cared for your privacy, they will just doing what was mandatory.

> 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…

Regulations and laws define what game are we playing. Of course, players are going to try to change the game to their convenience.

It's our work, as a society, to be watchful and try that the game is one that everybody have a chance to enjoy.

You can't do that without rules, in fact you can't have a game without rules. Even private property is just a rule.

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

#127
post #84
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.)

I love talking about this stuff but it does have a lot of technical jargon and dependent knowledge that is very difficult to convey simply. I'll try my best. Also this stuff is still being designed and built so some of it is not even concrete yet. Getting really into this would be a big article too so I'll try to be brief but not too much.

The basic premise is that protocols are more powerful than centralized entities as they are permissionless (anyone can use them without asking first), uncensorable (you can build a business on top of it without worrying about the platform disappearing from under you), and decentralized (no one single entity controls it and thus it becomes a public good). The internet has all of these properties which is why we all use it. Nobody built a Google on top of AOL for the same reason nobody built a successful business on top of Twitter (look this up if curious).

Protocols were limited until the invention of shared trust (Ethereum etc) but can now be instantiated for many kinds of discrete data and operations. Protocols are currently being built for identity (BrightID, POAP, many others), commerce (NFTs for art like Rarible, God's Unchained, etc, pretty much a standard way for everyone in the world to exchange physical goods which enables things like OpenSea which is a digital Ebay), primitive social protocols (Peepeth[not a great example but does the trick], Gitcoin, etc) with many more that I'm running out of time to list.

The important thing is that all of these protocols are open for everyone to use and even modify. Everyone is running on a shared data set and even more importantly they all weave together. Many apps are using an identity protocol for all user account type interactions alongside the NFT protocols for representing the objects used in the system. The protocols themselves handle the complexity and enable the scale needed for a single fair system to be used everywhere without the negative effects that would have in today's society (Google running the comments everywhere on the web would be a dystopia, but a Usenet group for each website would actually be nice).

Years of work remain and most protocols are still in the early days. The protocol that weaves a whole bunch of smaller ones together into a cohesive social network is also years away as it relies on the smaller protocols such as identity, file storage (IPFS), systems of moderation (DAOs, Kleros, etc) et all to be further developed to the point where others can take them and create something grander than the sum of the parts.

Hundreds of groups of people are all working hard on lots of aspects of these systems together. It will take time but even the progress today is rather exciting and feels like the early days of the internet itself.

(I'm not the best writer and I have a feeling this was a bit disjointed and not super helpful so sorry in advance and I can try to follow up on things if anyone is still interested.)

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

#128
I don't use Facebook. Planning in near future to stop using any centralised service or monopolised platform (Hey Apple how are you doing?). The move for control over Big Tech is not to serve the users, privacy is the marketing pitch. Everything has to do with future in which Governments want to share big data and control over citizens with Big Tech. It's all about power and money. The years of Internet as a vehicle for people to communicate and grow is over. Get on with it. You are the consumer (even Obama in the past clearly has stated Consumer, not Human) there is no political agenda that will change this outcome. The only right (for now) that you have is to vote with your money. This is it. In the next 2-3 years, regulations and big business will make Internet practically unusable. I am waiting VPN to be outlawed and kicking the switch off for good..

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

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU directives such as GDPR come into power by being localised and enacted, ie made into UK law. The data protection act 2018 will cover us up until it’s reversed, which is what some of us fear.

FYI, that's not quite correct. The EU makes laws in several ways. A directive is, as you said, a measure that individual member states then incorporate into their own national law to give it legal weight. But the GDPR is, as its name suggests, a regulation , which means it carries legal weight immediately and in its own right across the entire EU. The UK's position is strange because of Brexit, but it seems the pract…

No need to speculate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/419/made

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

#130
I think the headline here is a bit clickbaity. The post-EU UK has adopted the EU's GDPR legislation wholesale, and Facebook explicitly says that data will not be treated differently than that of EU citizens.

So while this might "avoid" EU privacy rules in some stretched interpretation of "avoid", in fact it will be avoiding them by applying an identical set of rules. That is, unless the UK government changes its data protection legislation at some point, which is another kettle of fish.

Post reply on HN