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

201–210 of 506 posts

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

#201

Post by throwaway2245 »

tpxl wrote: post #170
throwaway2245 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Afaik GDPR does not cover EU citizens (or residents) travelling outside the EU, but of course there is no harm for companies acting like it does.

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

#202

Post by criddell »

ricardo81 wrote: post #185
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…

> it's a lot harder for things to get seen

Do you think it was easier in the age before the internet to be gain an audience?

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

#203

Post by benbristow »

yarg wrote: post #140
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.

The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). Naturally there's a cost to all things: developers need to eat; they need a work/life balance. Unless there's financial backing for a concept or project it will have a hard time getting off the ground. And unless there's some corporate interest in what's being worked on it simply won't be written. The best hope is open-source outreach not as benevolence, but…

> Chromium might have some major advantages, but user privacy (and ultimately experience) will never be a part of it

I take it by saying 'Firefox's Backend' you're talking about Gecko, and with Chromium, Blink (fork of Webkit).

They’re just browser engines. What's the difference in terms of privacy? Nothing. They just render web pages.

No way they’d have two engines switchable, would make it a headache for developers and testers.

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

#204

Post by avianlyric »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #183
avianlyric wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I have a similar understanding, what will be interesting is how the UK will enforce its rules. Facebook has its HQ in Ireland, which notable not in the UK. This also applies to most other US companies.

Kinda makes me suspect that some companies will just ignore UK data protection law on the basis the UK can't do squat to enforce it.

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

#206

Post by alisonkisk »

Sargos wrote: post #98
hugi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What utter nonsense. Facebook and Twitter will not turn themselves into protocols unless explicitly forced to do so by authorities. It's in their interest to be monopolies.

I didn't say they will turn themselves into protocols. The social protocols that are developed will displace those corporations over time as they provide more functionality with fewer restrictions.

How would an ungoverned corporation be less evil than one subject to democratic laws?

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

#207

Post by godelski »

filoleg wrote: post #115
dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do people think ads only have to deal with buying stuff like your next take out meal or a book on Amazon? We have ads for politics, charities, public service, pubic image of famous people, etc. We have ads for basically everything. We've been doing this for over 100 years too! I'm pretty sure if ads only helped sell more hamburgers then politicians would spend their campaign money elsewhere. Surely someone in the last hundred years would have figured out a better way to optimize that cash flow. But just simplifying the argument to selling more hamburgers is pretty disingenuous.

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

#208

Post by alisonkisk »

Sargos wrote: post #127
cle wrote: post #84

Earlier 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.)

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 entitie…

If you can't even explain it to professional techies, it will never be adopted by the billions.

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

#209

Post by uncomputation »

criddell wrote: post #202
ricardo81 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's a lot harder for things to get seen Do you think it was easier in the age before the internet to be gain an audience?

Not GP, but I believe they meant it is a lot harder for things to get seen on the Internet now than it was on the Internet before, not IRL before.

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

#210

Post by laumars »

yarg wrote: post #140
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.

The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). Naturally there's a cost to all things: developers need to eat; they need a work/life balance. Unless there's financial backing for a concept or project it will have a hard time getting off the ground. And unless there's some corporate interest in what's being worked on it simply won't be written. The best hope is open-source outreach not as benevolence, but…

> The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer).

That may be true, but few people ask the follow up question “why do people expect things to be free?”

The answer is usually because companies like Google had pulled a bait-and-switch of sorts where they offered a service for free long before they made a commercial business of people’s profiles. They set this expectation of free themselves.

And you can’t really blame a consumer for wanting to bag a bargain.

Post reply on HN