Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

491–500 of 506 posts

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

#491
post #474
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Can the company simply cut you off then?

Yes. They're offering you the service under a particular set of terms. If you don't like those terms then the company is not obliged to adjust it's terms to suit you (assuming the terms themselves are legal in the first place, for example they don't break anti-discrimination law). In theory you could try negotiating the terms with the company to something that is more favourable for you, but as an individual you're not going to have a lot of leverage to get a company like google to offer a service that's specially tailored just for you! Negotiating is a lot more common in B2B services though, where you can have a lot more money on the table so it's worth it for both parties.

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

#492
post #26

So where will they be paying tax now if not Ireland?

If you need a quick run-down: * The UK is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Great Britain is the largest island in its archipelago (the British Isles); Northern Ireland is a region situated on the island of Ireland (another island in that archipelago). * Another region of the island of Ireland is (the bulk of) the sovereign state the Republic of Ireland, a country which is part of the EU. Th…

I was under the impression (clearly wrong) that Facebook's UK business is run through the Republic of Ireland due to lower tax.

Now that the UK is leaving Europe, they can either choose to stay there (which they are not doing), or move somewhere else (to California).

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

#493
post #186
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be possible to store data in a cryptographically decentralized way to stop giving meaning to "where" a data is stored? Or maybe even just XOR it with a random key, put the result in the UK and put the key in the US. That way neither US nor UK has "personal data" -- independently each country just got a pile of white noise -- but the two countries together do have it, and they wouldn't be able to say who "rea…

The government can just hold the locals in prison until the decrypted data is provided

This is literally the law in the UK at the moment: https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_...

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

#494
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). Naturally there's a cost to all things: developers need to eat; they need a work/life balance. Unless there's financial backing for a concept or project it will have a hard time getting off the ground. And unless there's some corporate interest in what's being worked on it simply won't be written. The best hope is open-source outreach not as benevolence, but…

> The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). That may be true, but few people ask the follow up question “why do people expect things to be free?” The answer is usually because companies like Google had pulled a bait-and-switch of sorts where they offered a service for free long before they made a commercial business of people’s profiles. They set this expectation of free themselves. And you can’t rea…

Napster was around before Google.

People see the digital as ethereal - and it lacks a fixed(ish) production cost per unit, unlike a physical product.

I don't know what a fair price is for access to any form of digital content, other than less than the price of a AAA game (Orange Box excluded).

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

#495
post #491
post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Can the company simply cut you off then? Yes. They're offering you the service under a particular set of terms. If you don't like those terms then the company is not obliged to adjust it's terms to suit you (assuming the terms themselves are legal in the first place, for example they don't break anti-discrimination law). In theory you could try negotiating the terms with the company to something that is more favour…

No. It's explicitly set out in the GDPR that refusal to agree to the unnecessary collection of personal data must not be a reason to withhold service.

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

#496
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). That may be true, but few people ask the follow up question “why do people expect things to be free?” The answer is usually because companies like Google had pulled a bait-and-switch of sorts where they offered a service for free long before they made a commercial business of people’s profiles. They set this expectation of free themselves. And you can’t rea…

Napster was around before Google. People see the digital as ethereal - and it lacks a fixed(ish) production cost per unit, unlike a physical product. I don't know what a fair price is for access to any form of digital content, other than less than the price of a AAA game (Orange Box excluded).

Copyright is a different issue but if you want to discuss that then it’s worth noting that when copyright law was invented it was intended a bit like a patent law but to protect authors against the cost of printing books. Stories themselves were considered ideas and thus where considered free because before printed books stories would be passed on to one another for free by word of mouth.

More recently and it is actually perfectly legal to copy music off the radio and programs off the TV. It’s even legal for people to share their VHS recording with friends and family and keep those recordings around indefinitely. A great many of purple took advantage of that — those who could afford to buy singles or films would do so while others were happy to wait until it was aired and then copy it one a blank cassette.

Trademarks were also less aggressively pursued. That might have been because before the internet was as commoditised it was apparent when Bobby Joe used Disney’s IP for their kids birthday. But now it’s so much easier for companies to identify and clamp down on what they perceive as theft of their intellectual property.

Whether you agree with current copyright laws or not, there has still been a long history of precedence of greater consumer rights and minor transgressions being ignored...then that all changed when content went digital. However people’s attitudes didn’t change with the switch to digital content. At least not initially. Napster was born from the generation of people who grew up recording music from the radio but who no longer listened to the radio. At the time of Napster, downloading was still pretty slow (or, more precisely, peers uploading the MP3s you wanted were slow) and most MP3s were sub CD quality anyway. So if you could afford to buy CDs then you probably would have done.

The real change was when downloading became more convenient than legally buying. That’s really when piracy took off into the mainstream. But when that happened that was because consumers were desperate for a more modern business model while content owners kept dragging their heels by squeezing their antiquated business model and threatening anyone who didn’t comply.

Let’s also not forget that, for a long time, legally owned content was worse than the same content pirated. eg CD root kits, the unskipable “you wouldn’t steal a handbag” adverts that ironically only appeared on legally purchased DVDs, DVD region locking, etc. If you owned a pirated CD or DVD then your user experience was often better than those who paid for their legal copy.

So I find it really hard to be sympathetic to content holders because they’ve lobbied to extend copyright, reduce consumer rights on digital content, and have held back the entertainment industries for years with anti-consumer practices while the world evolved around them. And I find it hypocritical that they then moan about how everyone else is playing foul and they’re just the victims in all this. It smacks of playground bullies moaning when kids refuse to give them lunch money.

But this is all a very different topic to the one of online services, which was the topic originally being discussed.

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

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissoluti…

What's the solution? You squeeze FB/Google and you'll get several another ones that will start with lofty slogans ("Don't be evil. Really this time!") and by the time end up being same silos. I think these platforms are inevitable.

Inevitable unless its not. Providing the infrastructure for say, facebook's primary needs is relatively cheap, but nobody can compete due to the network effect + them buying up any large competitor.

Its because everyone is already there that this stuff is allowed to fester. Nobody who's not crazy right wing is going on Parler - that is the way it should be. It should be totally self-selected which grouping you use, and there shouldn't be one thing that has "everyone" that prevents all others from starting. White supremacist websites existed well before this stuff, but in a decade they didn't get the traffic that one popular FB post gets.

Where's "Apolotical" Facebook? Where's "only share photos of your kids and vacation" Facebook? They can sell ads for baby clothes and cheap flights. There's more of a market need for that sort of thing than what it is that Facebook provides.

Here's a solution - a bunch of competing "profile" companies that you can choose to manage your online profiles that would work on any social network. They get kickbacks from those social networks running ads. Some of those profile companies might be incredibly private, some might give out a ton of info about you for targeted advertising. Regulate it so companies must have X and Y user access controls on your user profile, and also so sites must use those sites.

I don't even think the above is actually a workable solution. But the idea that things are inevitable is a lack of imagination.

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

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how they justify it, certainly. That’s also how they justify cheering for violence. Anti vaxxers and people wanting police dept reform aren’t the same as the people who want and are preparing for a second civil war

Or how a section of liberals want to defund/disband the police, tear down any link with the past(if the past involves a white male), cancel everybody to the right of Biden and so on. Again, it works both ways.

What part of justice for murderers, tearing down idols of people who fought for slavery, and social shaming of people who espouse racist ideologies do you find to be wrong?

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

#499
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can the company simply cut you off then? Yes. They're offering you the service under a particular set of terms. If you don't like those terms then the company is not obliged to adjust it's terms to suit you (assuming the terms themselves are legal in the first place, for example they don't break anti-discrimination law). In theory you could try negotiating the terms with the company to something that is more favour…

No. It's explicitly set out in the GDPR that refusal to agree to the unnecessary collection of personal data must not be a reason to withhold service.

Interesting, thank you! I'll have to look that up further..

This seems remarkable (not right/wrong) to me, that a private non-essential enterprise can be forced to service a customer who does not agree to their terms of use.

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

#500
post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's explicitly set out in the GDPR that refusal to agree to the unnecessary collection of personal data must not be a reason to withhold service.

Interesting, thank you! I'll have to look that up further.. This seems remarkable (not right/wrong) to me, that a private non-essential enterprise can be forced to service a customer who does not agree to their terms of use.

There is plenty of precedent. For instance, a private non-essential enterprise is not allowed to refuse service to a customer because they do not agree to never buy anything from their competitor.
Post reply on HN