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

291–300 of 506 posts

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

#291

Post by KukiAirani »

privacylawthrow wrote: post #116
KukiAirani wrote: post #29

Personally, I think the GDPR cookie notifications have severely degraded the user experience of the web. I also think it's become just another "Terms and Conditions" - something that people reflexively accept because they want to get on with using a product. Future regulations with teeth, but don't exist yet, are things like: - Data portability: I should be able to export my entire Facebook account in full in a stand…

1) Cookie notifications are not required by GDPR. They are required by national level implementation of the ePrivacy Directive. 2) Data portability is already a requirement under GDPR Article 20. The problem is that it requires competing services to work together to create interoperable systems or formats. That's really unlikely to happen without addition regulatory action mandating that competitors cooperate. People…

I guess I had a pretty weak understanding of GDPR, I appreciate you and others replying and informing me.

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

#292

Post by M2Ys4U »

Fl8ixIDN wrote: post #121
jrochkind1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the EU is a force against that, standardizing regulations across the whole EU. Facebook is changing how it relates to UK users because they have left the EU, of course. At the moment there aren't really any significant contradictory laws/regulations I am aware of. Facebook could just choose to treat everyone as if they were protected by EU laws, but they choose not to. They didn't have to change how they re…

I don’t think this is correct. EU is pretty strong in favour of data localisation, UK is not. Moving customers to California doesn’t mean they are no longer under UK privacy rules, which of course are identical to EU privacy rules (for the foreseeable future, could change of course).

It's not about localisation of data, it's about localisation of control of those data.

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

#293

Post by M2Ys4U »

jacquesm wrote: post #220

This won't fly, for the simple reason that the ICO will have the same set of rules regarding data privacy that the EU has right now. They may change it, but that's the starting position. Facebook is not going to like the kind of fines that the ICO can throw at them.

The ICO can fine, but almost certainly won't. It's a failed regulator.

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

#294

Post by Infinitesimus »

ironmagma wrote: post #258
pilsetnieks wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in a country where a global total war and several occupations of the most evil totalitarian regimes in history is still within living memory, and having been under an isolationist totalitarian power, comments like these make me shudder. Globalization has some problems. The benefits so far have massively outweighed them, especially if you take the long view. How about we try to fix those faults, instead of retr…

Centralization of supply chains, economic monoculture, increased spread of disease, increased carbon emissions, massively increased pollution. That’s a lot of risks which are mostly unquantifiable; it’s dubious to claim we know which is worse, especially in the long run. We lived without globalism for many thousands of years, it’s incredibly new and unproven.

I think the idea here is that keeping most humans alive, relatively healthy and out of poverty is good end goal and globalization helped with that.

We do have unquantifiable long-term risks but I would wager you don't want to live in the days where you did from a small wound because we don't have the technology or scale to provide antibiotics.

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

#295

Post by M2Ys4U »

avianlyric wrote: post #190
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citizenship and residency (of data subjects) doesn't come in to the GDPR at all.

If the data controller/processor is in the EU, the GDPR applies.

If the data subject is physically located in the EU (even if not a citizen or resident) then the GDPR applies.

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

#296

Post by pilsetnieks »

avianlyric wrote: post #250
pilsetnieks wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually talking about this one person's situation. They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die. It's like asking why can't I get my garbage back because I threw it in the re…

Yeah the whole point of GDPR is that it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from crap like this > They're on HN so they should be aware of the risks and means of mitigation, including means against shadow profiling. If they weren't, they should be by now, and still have means to extricate themselves from it. Facebook is despicable in its practices and I cannot wait to see it die. EU society has decid…

That was a response to that one person about their own personal situation. By context I can assume that they know what they're doing.

You can be in full support of the law while still cautioning to avoid the criminals. The law does exist, especially in the EU where they're from (at least until the end of the year) but there are wolves about. You should still protect yourself if you can.

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

#297

Post by wpietri »

ricardo81 wrote: post #248
cortesoft wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you have been able to get people to see your great unique website 20 years ago? I don't remember it being easy to get a large audience at any point in the internet's history.

You build a site with unique content, decent layout, design. Email other website owners "Hi, I think this would be would be a decent resource for your 'other resources' page / your visitors might like this". (as opposed to ... what other means do you discover new content?) Only, no one does link pages anymore, because they're fearful of platform algos deciding that their inbound/outbound link profile is toxic. What I…

I think this has stopped working not because of platform fear, but because it no longer solves a problem. Back in the day, good content was scarce and discovery was hard. These days neither is true. If my to-read list weren't already overflowing, 30 minutes poking around on Twitter would fill it right up.

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

#298

Post by stale2002 »

mrtksn wrote: post #64
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> what does it mean “residency”?

Usually residency is self declared or based on where you have spent the majority of the year working in.

This is already handled, by lots of people, when they declare residency already, for where they currently live/work/are covered by taxes under.

This isn't a new thing.

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

#299

Post by skykooler »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #122
trident5000 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite is the NY LLC publishing requirement. To start a business you must publish that you started a business for 6 consecutive weeks which costs thousands. Wonder what back door corrupt deal was made on that one.

Got a better one. Try to buy a car in the USA, directly from a manufacturer.

Which is why there are many states in which you can't buy a Tesla (since they sell directly from the manufacturer).

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

#300

Post by bonoboTP »

avianlyric wrote: post #283
bonoboTP wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know which party will do what, once in government? You wait for another Snowden and replace them again? What if your preferred nice politician enters power and is briefed on things that make him realize there are more upsides to the project to combat national security issues, and secretly continues things? It's very hard to have popular control over secret operations where you may only sporadically learn a…

Not really sure why any of that matters. It’s pretty simple, I would rather have my data stored somewhere I have some level of recourse for privacy violations. Even if that recourse is long drawn out and difficult, than somewhere I have no recourse, and never will have any recourse. I really don’t understand why you’re struggling to understand that. Talking about the relative merits of different governments is comple…

Just don't overestimate the effect of the data location. You have other tools as well, including controlling more tightly what information you share on platforms like Facebook. Now surely, they do track us regardless, shadow profiles, like buttons etc.

Also on the other side of things, does it harm me more if a foreign government holds information on me, random Joe, or if my own government holds the same info? Which one cares more about the info and might have incentives to abuse it? What if China has a profile on me? I'll most likely never enter China anyway. I don't live and work in the US, why would them mining my data be so dangerous?

Post reply on HN