Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 263 posts

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#231

Post by dragonwriter »

logicprog wrote: post #183
prox wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey thanks for your comment and other perspective! How couldn’t you read him before the overtake? What’s the difference? Could this inspector join Threads and would you follow him there?

They probably couldn't read him on pre-musk twitter because he was briefly banned. From the Wikipedia page, this is why: "Ritter rejected the Western media's coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and has voiced his perspective on multiple podcasts, including Andrew Napolitano's.[42][43] In April 2022, he posted a tweet claiming that the National Police of Ukraine is responsible for the Bucha massacre and c…

> He's a Russian shill, imperialism apologist.

He's also a serial sex predator targeting minors.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#232

Post by logicprog »

dragonwriter wrote: post #231
logicprog wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably couldn't read him on pre-musk twitter because he was briefly banned. From the Wikipedia page, this is why: "Ritter rejected the Western media's coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and has voiced his perspective on multiple podcasts, including Andrew Napolitano's.[42][43] In April 2022, he posted a tweet claiming that the National Police of Ukraine is responsible for the Bucha massacre and c…

> He's a Russian shill, imperialism apologist. He's also a serial sex predator targeting minors.

Good point

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#233

Post by _cenw »

Silhouette wrote: post #215
_cenw wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree though, this argument is extremely weak, like a developer being asked to step outside their comfort zone locking up and declaring something unknowable levels of complexity so they don't even have to try. The GDPR is extremely easy to understand. It's not always trivial to comply with, because we all know that enterprises are held together with instant glue, a networking VM in a basement nobody has…

The GDPR is extremely easy to understand. I respectfully disagree. And I write that not only as a very experienced developer but also as a director who has been legally responsible for GDPR compliance in more than one relatively small organisation. The GDPR in its official format in English is 88 printed pages. It contains 173 introductory paragraphs followed by 99 specific Articles some of which span multiple pages…

I will take your point, but I'd say you also need to account for how the GDPR has been enforced to this point. I regularly submit complaints to supervisory authorities and I've been employed by a few companies that regularly have meetings with their local SAs for guidance regarding potential pitfalls.

Most enforcement is directed towards total disregard of the GDPR. Data that hasn't been properly deleted after requests, requests that go unanswered, and entities like Meta who think their legitimate interest towers over protected categories of information (i.e. allowing microtargeting based on health). Companies also get away with a lot of easy to see violations (i.e. I've complained about Microsoft doing dark patterns to obscure whether agreeing to data collection is a requirement for a service to work).

Usually you'll be fine if you understand the basic framework and intent.

And I'm not sure how you get to 88 pages. It comes out to 68 pages with very generous margins and a line-height of 22pt on A4 for me.[1] (also, all EU law, including translated judgements, is canonical in all member state languages, FYI)

[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#234

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

Levitz wrote: post #221
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU is not an arbiter of which particular business it likes or doesn't like. It's not Russia.

EU can very well decide not to allow any product they please. There are products that can't be sold on the EU because of health concerns. Threads is no different.

EU doesn't decide what product to allow or not. It has regulation, and any decisions are according to those rules, the same for all companies. Which is my point. They have no vendetta against Meta, as evidenced by Facebook and Instagram working fine in EU.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#235

Post by that_guy_iain »

tremon wrote: post #225
johngladtj wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it bans businesses it doesn't like, right?

Can you name one business that was banned by name, rather than by practice? (I think Huawei might qualify, but I'm not sure what else).

Huawei having problems security wise is generally a national issue and not an EU issue. Their products are being sold in the EU with no problems.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#236

Post by Silhouette »

_cenw wrote: post #233
Silhouette wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR is extremely easy to understand. I respectfully disagree. And I write that not only as a very experienced developer but also as a director who has been legally responsible for GDPR compliance in more than one relatively small organisation. The GDPR in its official format in English is 88 printed pages. It contains 173 introductory paragraphs followed by 99 specific Articles some of which span multiple pages…

I will take your point, but I'd say you also need to account for how the GDPR has been enforced to this point. I regularly submit complaints to supervisory authorities and I've been employed by a few companies that regularly have meetings with their local SAs for guidance regarding potential pitfalls. Most enforcement is directed towards total disregard of the GDPR. Data that hasn't been properly deleted after reques…

I will take your point, but I'd say you also need to account for how the GDPR has been enforced to this point. ... Most enforcement is directed towards total disregard of the GDPR.

I agree this is true. And at least here in the UK the regulators appear to be acting in good faith and according to the spirit of the law. However I don't like the principle that not enforcing a bad rule somehow makes it better.

If something doesn't need to be enforced then it doesn't need to be a rule at all. Then it can't be selectively and possibly punitively enforced against someone the authorities take a dislike to or simply because of a bureaucratic mistake caused by incompetence rather than malice.

Moreover having rules that are rarely enforced effectively penalises those who do make a good faith effort to comply but probably would not have suffered any ill effects if they had not done so. They're being penalised by paying extra compliance costs for trying to do "the right thing" and that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. In a business context it is literally giving a direct financial advantage to competitors who bend or outright ignore the rules and get away with it.

And I'm not sure how you get to 88 pages.

Official PDF:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#237

Post by murderfs »

hnlmorg wrote: post #213
murderfs wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a tech manager for an EU company, I can honestly say that it isn’t that hard to be GDPR compliant. > This whole “GDPR is dangerous” meme needs to die because businesses aren’t being dragged in court over trivial things because of it. Ah, yes, the one weird trick of GDPR "compliance" by being a smaller, less appealing target to the enforcers. The "GDPR is dangerous" meme needs to stay alive because it's massively…

Even if that were true, it isn’t but for the sake of the discussion I’ll humour you, America is far more open and aggressive with its protectionism policies. As is China. So I don’t understand the complaint. You’re either in favour of laws that promote the growth of local economies or you’re not. But to be clear, the GDPR is not about protectionism. If it feels that way then perhaps you need to have a hard look at wh…

I'm neutral on protectionism: I'm in favor of laws that are precise and unambiguous, and not up to the interpretation of whatever courts and enforcement agencies wish to impose.

For example, which of the following statements are true according to the ECJ's interpretation?

American companies cannot run datacenters in Europe, because the CLOUD act might compel them to give up data to American authorities.

Canadian companies cannot run datacenters in Europe, because Canada might pass legislation that compels companies to give up data to Canadian authorities.

American citizens cannot work at datacenters in Europe, because they're subject to U.S. law, and the U.S. might pass legislation to compel them to steal data.

Germany cannot host datacenters, because they lack an independent nuclear triad, meaning that they're subject to U.S. invasion to seize the datacenters.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#238

Post by marcod »

deelowe wrote: post #210
mellosouls wrote: post #44

Tbh if you are concerned about the privacy and ethics concerns here the biggest red flag is in the subtitle: Meta's Twitter rival launched in over 100 countries today—but not in the EU Anything more is simply detail - if a major launch of this sort of service omits the EU we immediately know exactly why.

> if a major launch of this sort of service omits the EU we immediately know exactly why. Yeah, because implementing compliance features takes time and they likely opted to launch early instead.

Anybody who has worked on rolling out large scale software systems should understand this.

Personally, I think the US should also have much stronger laws that safeguard the data of their people.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#239

Post by burnished »

jaynetics wrote: post #81
burnished wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't ironic, they aren't questioning or otherwise probing motives

Well, they are questioning the motivation to question the motivation of others. Assuming that this invalidates their point would, however, be a logical fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Except that they are not questioning that motivation at all - blanket assertion that the activity is done too much but nothing supposed about anyone's reasons or whyfores.

I think that statement is being incorrectly reduced/interpreted to 'mind your own business' which would be ironic.

Re: Red flags in the Threads privacy policy

#240

Post by tqi »

scythe wrote: post #26
tqi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we spend too much time and mental energy questioning other people's reasons for how they spend their free time.

You do realize the irony in that statement, correct?

Honestly, touche.

In my defense, I said "we" and not "you" for a reason. Also the point I was attempting to make was less "stop doing that" and more "that way madness lies"

Post reply on HN