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

421–430 of 506 posts

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

#421

Post by fnord123 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #281
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes" Russian regulation against corruption has not achieved the intended outcomes, therefore they should have no regulation against corruption at all?

I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on pri…

> To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.

Getting into your car doesn't get you to work in the morning. Why do it? Because it's a part of a larger process.

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

#422

Post by rahoulb »

ayroblu wrote: post #12

I know people will be up in arms about tech companies abusing data, whatever that means, but what I don't fully understand from the article is why this is happening. > Facebook’s UK users will remain subject to UK privacy law, which for now tracks the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) My understanding is similar to this, which is that all the privacy laws are the same, so is this a Brexit thi…

My guess is this is exactly what the "deal/no-deal" divergence talks are about. Today, the UK and EU GDPR rules are in alignment. But on the 2nd January, there's nothing to stop the UK from throwing them away.

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

#423

Post by cm2187 »

kolinko wrote: post #391
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.

In case of GDPR (EU) and securities laws (US), citizenship matters, not location. For example, almost anywhere in the world if you want to open a bank account they will explicitly ask you now if you’re an american citizen.

I believe GDPR applies to EU residents. I believe the complication is that it also applies if they are travelling outside of the EU, but not if they become resident outside of the EU.

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

#424

Post by AmericanChopper »

fnord123 wrote: post #418
AmericanChopper wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. It’s arguable been most successful in Access to Data area, and to some extend Data Erasure. But the Consent and Documentation provisions are a complete joke. Most EU data subjects have no idea who’s holding their data, or how/why they have access to it. The only area it’s been truly successful in has been levying…

> This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. followed by > [list of benefits to privacy and one that maybe needs more work] stay salty.

The Consent and Documentation provisions are the only part of the GDPR that protect your privacy. Without that the Access to Data provisions is largely moot. Why would it occur to anybody to send access requests to some large market analytics company they've never heard of? Its beneficial in the narrow scope of cases where a data subject knowingly consents to a party that they are directly familiar with having their data (like Facebook), and they want to find out specifically what it is. But your average data subject is being tracked without consent by a myriad of companies they've never heard of, and all that data is aggregated and sold on by a myriad of other companies they've never heard of. Without informed consent, the GDPR falls incredibly far from even coming close to achieving it's stated objectives, and that's basically where it is today.

And as I said, for the companies that actually do have to worry about enforcement, it's largely just incorporated into the cost of business.

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

#425

Post by Spare_account »

avianlyric wrote: post #198
dvcrn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not about citizenship but where you live. In place A the rules of place A apply. If place A is part of the EU, EU laws apply.

Incorrect. With GDPR the EU extended their power to protect all EU citizens regardless of residency in, or out, of the EU. Of course the EU will have trouble enforcing that protection against companies that don't operate in the EU. But the protection remains, even if it's practically unenforceable.

I'm British and have a British passport and I permanently reside in the UK but I'm also technically an Irish citizen because my Irish father was born in Ireland.

I have never applied for an Irish passport but I am automatically an Irish citizen based on my ancestry. Does Facebook know this? Do I need to inform them to benefit from GDPR protections on an ongoing basis?

How the hell is any of this enforceable?

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

#426

Post by AmericanChopper »

fnord123 wrote: post #421
AmericanChopper wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on pri…

> To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it. Getting into your car doesn't get you to work in the morning. Why do it? Because it's a part of a larger process.

If history's shown us anything it's that the solution to ineffectual regulation is more ineffectual regulation, right? Eventually all of the things that don't work will somehow add up to something that does? The place that your weak analogy falls over is that I can show you empirical evidence that if I want to drive to work in the morning, that I have to get into my car first. You do not have any sort of evidence that the GDPR will eventually work for some unstated reason.

As a side note, why has the weak analogy become such a popular logical fallacy? Do you honestly see similarities between regulating data access and driving to work?

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

#427

Post by remus »

mnw21cam wrote: post #420
dpwm wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never agreed. Google just stopped asking after a while. I think I could refer Google to the data protection office, but the chances that they'll actually do anything about it are slim to zero.

Typically there's a clause along the lines of "You have 30/60/90 days to explicitly agree to the new terms. If you continue to use the service after this time you are implicitly agreeing to the new terms."

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

#428

Post by mratsim »

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.

The rules are anything but clear.

Some countries require at least 6 months + 1 day to be considered a resident, others might have you have a resident even if you aren't there if "the country is the center of your family or economic interests".

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

#429

Post by remus »

asplake wrote: post #407
mjgs wrote: post #406

Sort of related, does anyone know if all the consent form popups will stop once the UK leaves the EU?

Hope so. In general I’m a fan of GDPR but I’d be glad to see this one go

For what it's worth those cookie popups are actually from the EU e-privacy directive (which is implemented as PECR in the UK), so they aren't because of GDPR.

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

#430

Post by mjgs »

verytrivial wrote: post #414
mjgs wrote: post #406

Sort of related, does anyone know if all the consent form popups will stop once the UK leaves the EU?

I think they will go away over time. [RANT] They should never have been implemented that way IMHO -- a different API or IETF-ish agreed HTML meta tag that would inform the browser of the scope, entities etc. would have allowed the browser to offer overall policy choices to the user. Most would be "I don't care, do whatever you want to me" but those who do care could have been picky. That would also have allowed the b…

I’ve been wondering about whether it should be something implemented in the browser too. Instinctively I feel that better browser tools would be beneficial, but it’s an odd problem that we are trying to solve. I am not even sure we understand the root issue.

Some companies want to use the web to try to change users behaviour, and many users want those companies to change their behaviour. That’s not a solvable problem, it’s a circular reference bug.

So maybe better tools might actually make it worse, in a race to the bottom sort of situation.

My main concern is that the consent forms, however well meaning they might be, are creating a horrible environment. There are lots of perverse incentives for people to ruin the web experience. Some players stand to gain a lot from a horrible web environment. For example ones that have competing information products.

I’m increasingly thinking it would be better to just not have consent forms, and with better browser tools, people would hopefully go to websites that treated them well.

Post reply on HN