obligatory comment: You should have stayed in Europe friends...
This will effect people still using Facebook in 2020, they only have themselves to blame.
Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
151–160 of 506 posts
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#152So where will they be paying tax now if not Ireland?
N.I and EIRE are very different things, we had a couple of wars about it i think...
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
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?
If your basis for processing private data is consent, then under GDPR one of the conditions on consent is that consent has to be freely given, it can't be traded for something.
In essence, under EU law privacy is an unalienable right, it's not something that can be freely contractually sold away (alienated) by the users. If you have a contract where users agree to allow you to do whatever with their data because you give them $100 or show some content, then that does not fit the definition for consent according to GDPR, and this contract does not - can not - give you the right to process their data as you wish; that particular clause in the contract is effectively void, the users are "selling" something they can't legally sell.
If some data is required to fulfil your contractual obligations to the user (for example, processing their address to deliver pizza), then that is a legitimate use under GDPR 6.1.b which does not require consent, but if you'd want to use the same data for some other purpose (for example, using that same address for targeting advertising or giving it to a third party) then the contractual need clause 6.1.b wouldn't apply, you'd be stuck with 6.1.a (consent) and that is valid only if it's a genuine free choice without some benefit or service being conditional on providing "consent".
So you technically are allowed to block access to your site to people who don't click a checkbox "I agree to stuff", however, if you do so then clicking that checkbox does not constitute freely given consent, so it can't give you any rights to use the data for any of the people who checked that checkbox, for the purposes of GDPR that checkbox is simply meaningless if access to your site was conditional on it. So the users have the right to (and will) file complaints about illegitimate use of their data right after clicking the "I agree to stuff" checkbox.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the political pitch. It’s really just the EU trying to challenge the economic dominance of US tech companies. Tariffs and trade barriers are unpopular, and people who implement them are supposedly very bad. But privacy regulation and huge fines for big tech are very popular, and the people who implement them are supposedly very good. When people see the fines given out I think they presume the regulations are…
Not only the EU. Asian giants as well. You're even seeing African nations latch on to "balkanization" as a method of both keeping control of their citizens' exposure to information, and addressing their problem with youth unemployment. I think in the future there will definitely be regional internets so to speak. You will still be able to talk to people via the boring protocols, like email for instance. But a lot of…
The parallels to Asia are very accurate. Which does seem to be where a lot of counties are heading. Perhaps soon, most of the world will be as good at controlling misinformation as China is.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
While I agree with the theory of what your saying, I'm not so sure it matches the reality.
If it did, then why is Facebook moving the data? There would be no benefit. Also it's currently not clear that it's actually legal to move EU citizen data to the US, because the EU doesn't thing the US has strong enough privacy protections.
I know that EU citizen data is in the US, and people keep coming up with clever legal structures to make it legal. But those structures keep getting ruled illegal by EU courts.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Fewer regulations should be the goal. Simplified tax goals. Fairtax was a great attempt at this. One tax rate. Everyone got a check so that poor people didn’t suffer. Millions of tax attorneys and government would need to find something else to do.
>Fewer regulations should be the goal.
That goal is lost while regulatory capture is the norm.
Others say "better regulations protecting people should be the goal"
That goal is lost while regulatory capture is the norm.
Whatever our cause, without reform of the norm of regulatory capture, our cause is lost.
I'd much rather reform that corruption and the "other side" win power than "my side" win with the corruption raging on.
I'd love it if most people felt the same way about it and were willing to switch voting from Sanders style democratic socialism to Amash style libertarianism to get it done. Or the other way. I'm not sure what's more important politically right now. The corruption disease rages on with a change in ruling party.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#157I 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…
I don't think it's another kettle of fish, I think it's exactly what this article is about — the only reason for them to make this change is as a pre-cursor to a divergence in the UK/EU privacy laws (EU further strengthening their laws after Brexit, or UK weakening theirs).
They've given a vague statement to defend this being necessary — "Like other companies, Facebook has had to make changes to respond to Brexit" — even though Reuters point out Twitter as an example of a company _not_ making a change like this.
Also, Facebook haven't explicitly said that they won't treat data differently to EU citizens, but that "There will be no change to the privacy controls or the services Facebook offers to people in the UK", which is subtly different.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?
In this specific case, my data is being moved to California. Placing it in direct reach of the US government, which has not been historically shy about abusing that kind of reach. I would quite like my data to stay in the UK, where national governments I don't elect or pay taxes to, can't touch it.
Except the UK and US security agencies share data freely through the Five Eyes alliance.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Mastodon, does not operate above the ability of a nation state to block Mastodon.
At the info tech department of a large flagship university recently, (and for reasons that are a bit salacious), there was a need to block mastodon servers on campus and some coming from off campus. It was almost as easy as the flip of a switch to turn it off. If a university can do it on their network, it's a virtual certainty that a nation state can do the same.
Re: Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules
#160Earlier 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…
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.
> Regulatory capture is utterly rampant right now and a huge threat to democracy.
Rampant in the US. The EU has managed to avoid the worst of it so far.