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

471–480 of 506 posts

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

#471

Post by tobylane »

Fl8ixIDN wrote: post #129
Silhouette wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, that's not quite correct. The EU makes laws in several ways. A directive is, as you said, a measure that individual member states then incorporate into their own national law to give it legal weight. But the GDPR is, as its name suggests, a regulation , which means it carries legal weight immediately and in its own right across the entire EU. The UK's position is strange because of Brexit, but it seems the pract…

No need to speculate. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/419/made

I was thinking of this, a year earlier. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/part/1/enacted

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

#472

Post by sbarre »

antpls wrote: post #466

> Facebook Inc will shift all its users in the United Kingdom into user agreements with the corporate headquarters in California FB surely has a physical office in London, why not make that office the new UK headquarter, and move UK users under, well... UK terms?

Because moving them under California terms is better for Facebook?

If there's no legal requirement for them to operate under UK terms - especially if those are worse than California - why would they?

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

#473

Post by mytailorisrich »

dvcrn wrote: post #46
mrtksn wrote: post #25

How these rules apply for people with multiple citizenships and residence? That’s the case with a lot of people in Europe. How to find out to which jurisdiction my FB data is bound to?

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.

It's not even where you live but where you are located.

An American tourist in Paris is protected by the GDPR.

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

#474

Post by sbarre »

jnxx wrote: post #448
remus wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I would doubt whether such a clause would stand in court. Also, agreement (which is only one of the principles which make data processing legal, but I think it is the only one which covers what Google does, using the data for advertising which is not related to the direct service) is voluntarily, that means one cannot be forced to agree by otherwise withholding the service. Of course the latter point is not fully enf…

Question that perhaps someone can answer:

Can the company simply cut you off then?

You have no _right_ to the service, so if you choose not to agree, they can't force you to agree, but are they required to continue offering you the service?

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

#475

Post by himinlomax »

mrtksn wrote: post #446
himinlomax wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the UK there’s no address registry where you declare your address Can you vote in Glasgow's local elections if you live in Manchester?

To vote, you need to register to vote, I voted at London Mayor elections in 2016. You vote wherever you register to vote, I don't remember the details but I guess it was me declaring that I live there and I would like to vote. In UK there's this concept called proof of address and it's usually bill or a document that is sent to your address, there's no central registry of residents.

The point is, you don't need a register, central or otherwise, for the place of residence to be legally relevant. The way this kind of things work is that, should there be a legal challenge, you will provide a proof of residence to the court or whatever relevant body, just like you do when registering to vote.

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

#476

Post by peter_d_sherman »

I wonder if there would be a market for a company that:

A) Has offices in different locations in the world;

and

B) Sells, as a service, to other companies, the ability to "off-load" their users, user management, and user agreements -- to other countries and jurisdictions.

Yes, there are all kinds of problems with this idea(!), and yes, it would require tons and tons of Lawyers, both foreign and domestic, and that's if it could be done at all (is it moral/ethical/legal/legitimate/lawful at all levels?) -- but these issues temporarily excluded for the purposes of philosophical discussion, as someone who is interested in business and producing services for other businesses (AKA, value for business customers),

I have to wonder if there's a market there...

?

I of course, would lack the resources (much less the desire!) to attempt to capture that market, but nonetheless,

I have to wonder if there's a market there...

?

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

#477

Post by M2Ys4U »

tremon wrote: post #440
M2Ys4U wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One minor correction: If the data subject is physically located in the EU (even if not a citizen or resident) and the data controller purposefully targets data subjects in the union , the GDPR applies. As per [0]: the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third count…

That's right, although Recital 23 continues on to say

"factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union."

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

#478

Post by dkdk8283 »

zdragnar wrote: post #290
8note wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? This agrees with the statement that small companies are fluid and can find ways to work with regulations. Coming up with ways to avoid is that.

I do not believe that violating the spirit, if not the letter, of laws and regulations is a good strategy for enabling small teams to disrupt large incumbents. If we want a healthy market where small and large players alike can thrive, enabling regulatory capture and expecting small players to ignore regulations as long as they can is just bad policy.

In every business I’ve been in success can be traced back to the wilingness to something grey. If you can find a loophole, profit.

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

#479

Post by bserge »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #476

I wonder if there would be a market for a company that: A) Has offices in different locations in the world; and B) Sells, as a service, to other companies, the ability to "off-load" their users, user management, and user agreements -- to other countries and jurisdictions. Yes, there are all kinds of problems with this idea(!), and yes, it would require tons and tons of Lawyers, both foreign and domestic, and that's i…

I've been wondering the same haha. Seems like Russia and other ex-USSR countries would be good places to set up (close to EU, pretty open Internet and business laws, at least compared to China)...

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

#480

Post by andyjpb »

_jal wrote: post #37
Hokusai wrote: post #3

Tech companies, or any company for that matter, will do what is best for themselves. Regulations exist to protect consumers and other companies from accusative behaviors. Remove the regulation and the 'we care for your privacy' message disappears with it. Because they never cared for your privacy, they will just doing what was mandatory.

> Regulations exist to protect consumers and other companies from accusative behaviors. This is what people want to believe. But I think you'll find that regulations exist for a large number of reasons, some of which seem noble and others much less so. Frequently, they exist to provide disproportionate protections and perks to the connected.

I think this outlook is very much part of the reason that Britons are worried about Facebook's move to Californian terms.

In the UK we do have very well established "Consumer Law" which is there explicitly to protect the consumer and recognises that they are often not otherwise in a powerful position.

The most relevant stuff for Facebook is the data protection stuff, but another example, relevant to other online transactions, is the Distance Selling Regulations ( https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesse... ). This gives the customer the right to cancel, without a reason, for up to 14 days after the goods are delivered. If the business doesn't explicitly tell you this then your right to cancel is extended to 12 months.

Post reply on HN