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

24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

identityblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#101

Post by 0x12 »

pyre wrote: post #96
Jach wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misrepresentation is similar to neglect in that it's typically necessary for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. In this actual case, to repeat count's analogy, why aren't filesystem users complaining that their deleted data isn't "really deleted" (ignoring that such FS software is probably a no-warranty thing)? I've had to recover rm'd data a number of times myself. I don't think "deletion" has ever meant an expe…

In a filesystem, the data isn't scrubbed but it's marked as space that can be overwritten. While the completely removal doesn't happen at once, it's slated for complete removal at some undetermined time in the future. In the case of Facebook, they are making a conscious decision that they do not want this data to ever disappear. I doubt very much that there are policies to remove data marked as 'deleted' after a set…

And besides that, it is not the manufacturer of the filesystem that is in control, but the person that installed it, likely the same person that is deleting the files.

For web based services the rules change dramatically, because you are no longer in control of the data. Because the past has shown that companies seem to have a hard time to play nice with the data they store on behalf of their unsuspecting users there now is in some parts of the world a government entity tasked with precisely that: making sure that users right with respect to their data are respected.

If you don't like the way your filesystem deletes the data you can always cut up the platters.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#102

Post by zeteo »

Jach wrote: post #91
zeteo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't get the harsh kickbacks and complaints against things like "Facebook keeps records of pokes even if the user 'removes' them". So what? How is that something that is litigation or 'outcry' worthy? Under US contract law, misrepresentation is sufficient cause to rescind an otherwise binding contract. The contract users enter into with Facebook is to accept their terms of service in exchange for being pro…

Misrepresentation is similar to neglect in that it's typically necessary for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. In this actual case, to repeat count's analogy, why aren't filesystem users complaining that their deleted data isn't "really deleted" (ignoring that such FS software is probably a no-warranty thing)? I've had to recover rm'd data a number of times myself. I don't think "deletion" has ever meant an expe…

It's not the same thing, I believe. When an OS deletes a file, it's actually deleted as far as the OS is concerned (thus they do make a best effort). When FB "deletes" something, they only make it unavailable to you, but they retain the option of using it themselves.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#104

Post by vacri »

count wrote: post #14

Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Facebook isn't a government agency, it's a private organization that has persuaded people to give it armloads of data about themselves, and uses that for whatever completely legal purposes i…

EULAs are not intended to be properly read. Every $BIGNAME has a lengthy EULA, to the point where it's just a click-through. No reasonable person can be expected to read every tech EULA, let alone understand all its provisions.

Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agree or lose your existing body of work - it's a unilateral license change, not a mutual change of contract terms.

The whole "but you voluntarily agreed to their terms!" concept is a canard which disguises how obfuscatory and misdirectional the EULA process is. It's the difference between "consent" and "informed consent", which is significant.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#105

Post by nknight »

chc wrote: post #93
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service." Likewise, Facebook chose to operate under the laws of the various lands in which it operates.

I'm honestly unclear about this: Does Facebook actually have any operations in the EU, or does it merely not ban Europeans from accessing its servers in America?

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet

Dublin, Hamburg, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Stockholm.

Even if they didn't actually have physical offices in Europe, there are any number of situations in which Facebook may end up subjecting itself to some European laws. Consider:

* Taking advertising from European companies.

* Partnering with European developers on its platform.

* Using the services of European companies (datacenters, bandwidth, marketing...).

* Employing European employees, whether as ordinary employees or contractors.

* Attempting to enforce trademarks or copyrights in Europe.

In addition, if they wish European corporations to use Facebook to communicate with their customers, they need to not do anything that would expose those corporations to potential liability under European law.

There are a half-billion people in EU territory. They are on average relatively well-educated and wealthy consumers. That'd be one hell of a market to cut yourself off from financially.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#106

Post by vacri »

vacri wrote: post #104
count wrote: post #14

Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Facebook isn't a government agency, it's a private organization that has persuaded people to give it armloads of data about themselves, and uses that for whatever completely legal purposes i…

EULAs are not intended to be properly read. Every $BIGNAME has a lengthy EULA, to the point where it's just a click-through. No reasonable person can be expected to read every tech EULA, let alone understand all its provisions. Even then, whenever EULAs get updated, rare is the company that highlights the change - most expect you to reread and figure out the difference for yourself. You also have no choice but to agr…

example: my favourite EULA to date was one in a Windows OS installer, which weighed in at 3000 words... which you could only read in a box four lines high.

Still, it doesn't beat the 'voluntary' license where you can't read the license until you unseal the box, but unsealing the box indicates you agree with the license.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#107

Post by 0x12 »

gsmaverick wrote: post #92
ltamake wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Primary example: the Like button. Even when I'm not logged into Facebook the button tracks where I go. I never checked a box to have the like button shown to me. Also, agreeing to use a website does NOT give the website the ability to break the law. Otherwise, we could have drug-trafficking sites completely in the open with a box saying "By checking this box, you understand that we sell extremely illegal drugs, and t…

Don't visit sites that use the Like button, block the Facebook domain. It's not that difficult.

> Don't visit sites that use the Like button

That's nice in theory, but of course you can't know which pages have the 'like' button on it until you hit them.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

pyre wrote: post #94
acavailhez wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To respond to the last sentence : Yes, things like that can be illegal. As an example, in France it is forbidden to count the number of people who get in & out of a subway at a given station. I guess it's really a strong difference of culture between Europe and America : laws are made in Europe to make sure that people should not have to make the effort of guessing if a company will mess with their data or not. The c…

> As an example, in France it is forbidden to count the > number of people who get in & out of a subway at a given > station. That seems lame. That number is highly anonymous. How does a statement like "between 8am and 9am 250 people boarded the subway, and 130 people exited the subway" affect a person's privacy?

In July 2009, civil society groups opposed the implementation of intelligent advertising LCD screens in a Parisian subway station.[163] These screens not only broadcast messages but can also count the number of people passing by and measure the time spent looking at the screen thanks to a face scanning sensor. Since these actions, the French data protection Authority, the CNIL, has issued a report considering that this technology must take into consideration the data protection rights of individuals as provided under the Data Protection Law: individuals must receive proper notice and the devices must be notified to the CNIL.

https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/france-privacy-...

European law tends to work on the assumption that it's up to the owner of a technology to show how it will safeguard against the abuse of it. Failure to do so in the past has had disastrous consequences in some parts of Europe.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#109

Post by ArcticCelt »

count wrote: post #40
AlexMuir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to look beyond the law to what its purpose is - to prevent companies from exploiting your personal information, and to force them to tell you what data they hold. Facebook are exploiting your browser history, without telling you. And are refusing to even own up to it. I don't believe that 99% of Facebook users would tick a box that said 'Please record every webpage I visit and store it for your own future us…

But if you, as a customer of those websites, agree to them knowing you are there, and they chose to share that with others, what right does the government have to prevent that? Why is this not a 'just don't use the service if you don't like it' deal? Credit bureaus are significantly different - you have literally no choice in that manner; Facebook isn't providing data to be used in that type of decision though. If so…

>But if you, as a customer of those websites, agree to them knowing you are there, and they chose to share that with others, what right does the government have to prevent that?

>Why is this not a 'just don't use the service if you don't like it' deal?

This philosophy goes both ways.

Facebook decided to do business in other countries and to do so they are bound to respect the laws of those countries. If they don't like those laws their are perfectly free to stop operating there and let other companies take their share of the market.

Re: 24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook

#110

Post by poodougnut »

count wrote: post #14

Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is this a big deal? You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service. Facebook isn't a government agency, it's a private organization that has persuaded people to give it armloads of data about themselves, and uses that for whatever completely legal purposes i…

Where do you draw the line? ISP's aren't government agencies, either; should we stop going on the internet altogether? Neither are telephone companies. Should we abandon the telephone?

And were they government agencies, would the privacy concerns just have dissipated?

I think what it boils down to is: what is a right and what is a privilege? Is it that Facebook is a privilege, but my privacy remains my right?

Is there anything to 'right' and 'privilege' beyond legal context?

Post reply on HN