Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

161–170 of 506 posts

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

#161

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?

It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissolution of society where you might’ve talked to your neighbors. How many families have been split because of Facebook radicalization of conservatives? Mine for one.

I believe strongly that the social media and internet ad business models are at best amoral but responsible for the second order effects, much as coal plants are responsible for pollution. At worst they are making money off of making people crazy by giving every crazy person a megaphone and making sure you have to hear from them.

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

#162

CCPA covers them so it's not terrible.

IANAL, but I don't think it does. CCPA only covers California citizens. I can't perform any action under CCPA as a non-Californian

Oh yes, I thought they meant they'd treat them as California residents but they didn't really say that.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

some hn guidelines, in case you might find them helpful: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less,…

This would be more persuasive if Paul Graham followed them.

But he routinely responds to the weakest, easiest to criticize version of people's arguments. (see his billionaire essay for an especially egregious version of this. If he allowed for candid feedback, he wouldn't have published, but he only allows yes-men into his life).

He is also snarky and mean, quite often.

The real rules are that you can be as big of a dick as you want, so long as you are supportive of billionaires, white people, and men. If, on the other hand, you want to criticize them, you may only use the meekest possible language, or dang will ban you permanently.

As a meta-point, you are being a snarky asshole with the way you quoted the rules, but you won't get in trouble for it.

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

#164

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…

Would it be possible to store data in a cryptographically decentralized way to stop giving meaning to "where" a data is stored?

Or maybe even just XOR it with a random key, put the result in the UK and put the key in the US. That way neither US nor UK has "personal data" -- independently each country just got a pile of white noise -- but the two countries together do have it, and they wouldn't be able to say who "really" has it.

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

#165
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is the duty of the US government to not violate them. It’s hypocritical to do otherwise.

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

#166
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not wrong, but the constitution is meant to be a limit on the US government. They don't have to protect them from others, but surely it shouldn't be willfully trampling those rights through its own conduct either.

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

#167

Earlier 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.

To be honest, your data was first moved into the hands of an American company by you.

You still have 15 days to force them to delete everything under threat of GDPR.

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

#168
I'm actually in support of GDPR not being a thing outside of EU companies. We shouldn't be setting a precedent for a world in which the EU writes laws for everyone that take effect for products developed outside their borders.

To put it in context, just because EU users look at your site does not mean you need to follow EU laws any more than if China users look at your site or Iran users look at your site. You only need to follow your own jurisdiction's laws, and other countries can act to block your site if they don't like it.

That said, I'm pro-privacy and think there should be better regulation about that in the US.

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

#169

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.

Yeah, but have UK privacy laws been updated to reflect fact the UK is no longer part of the EU?

Something I've seen in lots of UK law derived from EU directives is that it applies limits to behaviour specifically happening in the EU. So UK privacy law might provide a whole load of protections to EU citizens, but not specifically to UK citizens, because EU citizens would be a superset including UK citizen. Except, as of 1st Jan 2021, that won't be true any more.

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is generally based on where the data is located That is not correct. Specifically, the counterexample is if you are a EU citizen living in an EU country and the actual bits are stored in a datacenter in Texas. GDPR still applies in this case, as long as the website owner accepts EU users. If the website specifically doesn't do business in the EU, things are different.

Ah, apologies, you're right to pick that up, it's not quite what I meant. Maybe "where the data originates" is better? Since the data originates where you are, the data has crossed a border to get to Texas and is therefore subject to GDPR (extra-territorially), I agree. If you were in Texas when that data was collected from you, and you returned to the EU, I doubt that GDPR would apply to that data.

>If you were in Texas when that data was collected from you, and you returned to the EU, I doubt that GDPR would apply to that data.

Afaik GDPR covers EU citizens traveling abroad, as well as non-EU citizens in the EU.

Edit: It does not cover EU citizens traveling abroad, see thread below.

Post reply on HN