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

181–190 of 506 posts

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

#181

Post by pilsetnieks »

k_bx wrote: post #147
ironmagma wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more like de-globalization, which could very well be a good thing given the multitudes of problems that have arisen out of globalization.

Yep. Another scary trend is the recent move of Joe Rogan under exclusively Spotify platform, together with the fact that they've removed the Podcasting part from their app for a number of countries including my own (Ukraine). I really hope there's going to be some common-sense movement that'll put this absurd to an end.

That's like the complete opposite of what the comment you're replying to is talking about. They're arguing against globalization and you're against different rules for different countries.

If you don't want globalization and think multiculturalism is the devil, it's kinda hypocritical to decry isolationism keeping away the global culture you do want.

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

#182

Post by 8note »

bilbo0s wrote: post #144
AmericanChopper wrote: post #137

Earlier 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…

You can consider the US as well, with the take down requests that you're not allowed to talk about due to "national security"

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

#183

Post by throwaway2245 »

avianlyric wrote: post #169
throwaway2245 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I understand that those laws have been updated: that EU law is initially being adopted with appropriate changes, i.e. it won't reference the EU any more and will reference the UK instead (and isn't defined around citizenship anyway)

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

#184

Post by vmception »

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?

So that was never true until after the 14th amendment passed and only later on when it was interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The entire US constitution only applied to the US Federal Government, until the 14th amendment expanded it to state governments and all publicly chartered entities and all entities that accept direct material support from publicly chartered entities which is only noticeable when they interact with the people.

So that would have been over 100 years ago so you might think the point is moot. The reality is that the point is not resolved, never will be completely resolved, and has had less time to be resolved than people may notice.

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

#185

Post by ricardo81 »

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.

It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen.

Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords.

Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other people might like to see.

When I used FB I lost count of the number of times I had to re-jig my setting for displaying content from "most popular" (according to them) versus most recent.

I still find that when I'm browsing Facebook. I see an article with XXXX number of comments and try to see what's newly been said, it's almost impossible- it's like I'm fighting against what new information is available vs their preferred method of displaying things due to the technical limitations of how they store information.

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

#186

Post by 8note »

dheera wrote: post #164
Traster wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "rea…

The government can just hold the locals in prison until the decrypted data is provided

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

#187

Post by FireBeyond »

treeman79 wrote: post #101
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.

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.

Multiple banks and credit card companies customer support lines now say "this call may be recorded and your voice may be used for identity verification".

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

#188

Post by throwaway2245 »

Fl8ixIDN wrote: post #125
throwaway2245 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, for now, although it would surprise me if changes haven't already been negotiated with the UK government: Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been on Facebook's staff since 2018.

Even without that, it doesn't make sense for Facebook companies to store the UK data in the EU/Ireland, where it would presumably then have to comply with both EU GDPR and UK GDPR.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by avianlyric »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #48
mrtksn wrote: post #25

How these rules apply for people with multiple citizenships and residence? That’s the case with a lot of people in Europe. How to find out to which jurisdiction my FB data is bound to?

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.

For most law sure. But for GDPR the EU explicitly extended it's protection to all EU citizen regardless of residency, and non EU citizen with residency in the EU.

Now there's the practical question of how the EU enforces that protection against companies that have no presence in the EU, but those that do, the EU has made it quite clear they'll take enforcement action.

Post reply on HN