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

401–410 of 506 posts

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

#401

Post by cycomanic »

tstrimple wrote: post #75
dcolkitt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn’t consistent with the empirical evidence whatsoever. An overwhelming amount of economic analysis shows that the burden of regulation disproportionately falls on small business. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there aren’t other justifications for any given regulation. But ain’t no small business owner or entrepreneur in history ever said “Boy! All these regulations sure are making my life easy”

Yeah, we never see examples of small teams disrupting large markets with entrenched competitors. I'm afraid with taxi medallion regulations, we'll never see any competition in that space.

The irony in all of this is that we somehow consider the uber of the world small businesses compared to taxi companies.

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

#402

Post by jart »

young_unixer wrote: post #205

I wonder where companies would draw the line of "This is too much, let's leave the EU market". A naïve answer would be: as long as there's a positive ROI. But I guess all the headaches must be taken into account.

In the past Google has shut down individual services like Google News in countries like Spain due to zany laws.

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

#403

Post by iamacyborg »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #331
avianlyric wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a failed regulator. Not sure I would go this far, but I do agree with this > The ICO can fine, but almost certainly won't But only because one the U.K. leaves the EU, the ICO will struggle to actually enforce its fines when all of the companies involved are notional operating in the EU with little direct presence in the U.K.

They've been failing to even issue fines, let alone enforce them. Both for competence reasons (see also: the collapse of the AIQ enforcement, and the climb-downs in Mariot and BA cases) and for... I don't know why in the adtech case. The ICO has evidence of wide-scale criminal behaviour in the adtech industry. And yet they flat-out refuse to take enforcement action . They're even proud of the fact they're refusing to…

They did, however, appear to do a good job with the recent Experian and Equifax enforcement.

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

#404

Post by lubonay »

notimetorelax wrote: post #100
mrtksn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, what does it mean “residency”? In the UK there’s no address registry where you declare your address. EU citizen works in the UK for 2 years then goes to Turkey for a vacation but likes the place so much, decides to stay for longer when still remote working for the same London company.Also connects through VPN because the Turks love banning websites. Where this person residence is? Are the UK, USA, EU or Turkish…

There are clear rules regulating that, but they may depend on the country.

They may also be very unclear or outright missing, depending on the country.

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

#405

Post by dpwm »

dharma1 wrote: post #383

How can they do this without repermissioning current UK users?

Google did something similar with a targeted terms of service update – I believe it was agree or close your account.

I suspect that this transfer is going to be consent-based to avoid non-compliance in the handful of cases cases where they have inaccurate data regarding location.

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

#408

Post by fastball »

sitkack wrote: post #314
fastball wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the US was to protect these rights for their own citizens / residents. Protecting those rights for the entire world is a bit out-of-scope.

The constitution applies to the US government in how it interacts with all people. Only where necessary is there an 'if citizen' clause.

Right, but generally the US government is not interacting with all people, it's interacting with Americans.

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

#409

Post by asplake »

richrichardsson wrote: post #92
wdb wrote: post #19

Do you need to change your location to UK or how does it decide you are a UK user?

This is a pertinent question. I set my account up in the UK but now reside in Croatia. Facebook has not been explicitly given my nationality, so I would assume they have to err on the side of caution and keep me under EU terms?

Don’t they do it based not on where you live (arguable they have no business knowing that) but on the location from which you access their services?

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

#410

Post by goatinaboat »

Silhouette wrote: post #66
eterm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changes is that the regulation won't be backed by the EU, so perhaps Facebook sees the UK regulator as toothless, or at least less likely to pursue things?

It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless, given it has so far been among the most severe in penalising large businesses under the much greater powers it acquired under the GDPR. This could be more of a strategic move from Facebook, anticipating the UK government wanting a quick post-Brexit trade deal with the US and having limited practical room to manoeuvr…

It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless

Given that the maximum penalty it can levy is £20m, it is completely toothless against any major corporation. BA got off with a slapped wrist after their fiasco. The GDPR looks good on paper but where exactly are these 4% of global turnover fines it was supposed to make happen?

Post reply on HN