Meta fined $1.3B over data transfers to U.S.(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Meta fined $1.3B over data transfers to U.S.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/meta-fined-1-3-billion-over-data-transfers-to-u-s-b53dbb04
510 comments
https://archive.is/dSg66
Pros:
For years America has disproportionately benefited from post-hoc enforcements (I mean mostly it was New York DAs suing banks for 2008, money collected from around the globe and then put into a single State)
(sane) Tech regulation is a long time coming and it's not coming out of the Five Eyes nations - good to see EU taking a lead
cons:
I wish this had been for a "harder violation. Yes it's bad. yes they are ignoring EU law. But it's you know drawing a social graph.
This leads to a fundamental issue - global capabilities (drawing a graph between all the people you know) should not be limited to arbitrary geographical boundaries. Social graph is fairly obvious - I have friends in US, where do we process the edge between those two nodes? If we cannot sort that one out we are going to struggle with epidemiology and medical inferences across boundaries.
Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed. I can conceive of some verifiable processing package that ensures data can be processed wherever and still meet regulations. Can that be part of the future?
(sane) Tech regulation is a long time coming and it's not coming out of the Five Eyes nations - good to see EU taking a lead
cons:
I wish this had been for a "harder violation. Yes it's bad. yes they are ignoring EU law. But it's you know drawing a social graph.
This leads to a fundamental issue - global capabilities (drawing a graph between all the people you know) should not be limited to arbitrary geographical boundaries. Social graph is fairly obvious - I have friends in US, where do we process the edge between those two nodes? If we cannot sort that one out we are going to struggle with epidemiology and medical inferences across boundaries.
Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed. I can conceive of some verifiable processing package that ensures data can be processed wherever and still meet regulations. Can that be part of the future?
> This leads to a fundamental issue - global capabilities (drawing a graph between all the people you know) should not be limited to arbitrary geographical boundaries.
For me, this hits a more fundamental issue: how do we govern global issues without a global government?
For me, this hits a more fundamental issue: how do we govern global issues without a global government?
Isn't this kind of exactly what the EU is showing us, that a global power isn't needed if countries actually set requirements and regulations.
There has been a lack of desire from law makers worldwide to protect consumer data even though it's very obvious that it should be a fundamental right to control who gets to know your personal information and worse, whether they can sell it.
What I believe is happening here is the EU is setting a new standard that the US and UK and others will have to follow if they want to do business in the EU, unless they invest millions in infrastructure and staff.
I believe the same happens in the US, one state such as California will make progressive law changes that force companies to just apply the same standards across other states as it's less legal and regulatory burden, so effectively one state can actually change the system for everyone, no global super government required.
What I believe is happening here is the EU is setting a new standard that the US and UK and others will have to follow if they want to do business in the EU, unless they invest millions in infrastructure and staff.
I believe the same happens in the US, one state such as California will make progressive law changes that force companies to just apply the same standards across other states as it's less legal and regulatory burden, so effectively one state can actually change the system for everyone, no global super government required.
Likewise you have governments like the UK who are discussing bills that will effectively ban E2E encryption for children’s safety. If passed, companies like WhatsApp would just leave the market.
I believe your comment is somewhat true, but in your examples with the EU and California it’s mostly the case where (one of) the largest market(s) is able to set laws that govern the entire world. Which is great if everyone also happens to agree with the law, but it’s not the most democratic situation.
I believe your comment is somewhat true, but in your examples with the EU and California it’s mostly the case where (one of) the largest market(s) is able to set laws that govern the entire world. Which is great if everyone also happens to agree with the law, but it’s not the most democratic situation.
The problem is, what is a democratic global government? Larger states dominate smaller states in democratic governments all over the world simply because of numbers of votes. Having yet another layer of elections over it doesn't really make much of a difference.
> Larger states dominate smaller states in democratic governments all over the world simply because of numbers of votes.
At what governance level would this be acceptable for you? The existence of political minorities is invitable. The question is where do you draw the line: street, block, postal code, city, metro, region, state, or nation? When is it ok to dominate others because they got less votes? The same issue is reflected in red states grabbing power from blue cities, with the implication that the state-level domination is A-OK.
At what governance level would this be acceptable for you? The existence of political minorities is invitable. The question is where do you draw the line: street, block, postal code, city, metro, region, state, or nation? When is it ok to dominate others because they got less votes? The same issue is reflected in red states grabbing power from blue cities, with the implication that the state-level domination is A-OK.
I didn't say anything about acceptability. But if grandparent's comment is this
> with the EU and California it’s mostly the case where (one of) the largest market(s) is able to set laws that govern the entire world
this is not likely to be solved by yet another layer of government.
> with the EU and California it’s mostly the case where (one of) the largest market(s) is able to set laws that govern the entire world
this is not likely to be solved by yet another layer of government.
Population of a nation doesn't necessarily correspond to influence, though.
In a democracy it does correspond with votes though. Other than one person = one vote, how would you structure a global government?
> how would you structure a global government?
We're not going to structure a global government, such a thing is never going to exist and we're never going to have to worry about it existing. Fortunately.
We're not going to structure a global government, such a thing is never going to exist and we're never going to have to worry about it existing. Fortunately.
It is the most democratic situation. Companies can decide between a leave that market, b treat the whole world by the strictest laws or c only follow those laws for those residents. If the cheapest solution is b, and capitalism demands the cheapest solution, then that’s useful information for the shareholders to choose a path. Just because we know what they will always choose doesn’t make it undemocratic.
b might just not be possible as above poster wrote, regulations might be in conflict.
I think I’m missing your point here. Let’s say Texas passes a law that all Texans data has to be processed in Texas, and because cowboys don’t give a shit there’s no consideration for the EUs law.
What would the appropriate way for meta to handle a friendship between a Texan and a European be? They can’t process the Texans data outside Texas, and they can’t transfer the Europeans data outside of Europe. Disallow them to be friends?
What would the appropriate way for meta to handle a friendship between a Texan and a European be? They can’t process the Texans data outside Texas, and they can’t transfer the Europeans data outside of Europe. Disallow them to be friends?
You are misrepresenting this ruling. Any data that the user gives informed consent to share can be moved wherever the user consents. This ruling is about sending user data without any active informed consent.
Not so simple. Even with consent you arent really allowed to store in america because america is assumed to be an unsafe country (because govt can at any moment force a US company to show the data)
Well, yes, that's ENTIRETY of the problem, US law pissing on privacy and user consent. Fix that and it's all well.
It never was about "where it is processed" but "who can access it".
It never was about "where it is processed" but "who can access it".
> because america is assumed to be an unsafe country (because govt can at any moment force a US company to show the data)
I assume here the EU can't do the same?
I assume here the EU can't do the same?
I don't think users can consent to ongoing general-purpose data transfers.
This is from the European Data Protection Board FAQ following the Schrems II ruling. Does the text of the new ruling say something different?
> 8) Can I rely on one of the derogations of Article 49 GDPR to transfer data to the U.S.?
> it should be recalled that when transfers are based on the consent of the data subject, it should be ... specific for the particular data transfer or set of transfers (meaning that the data exporter must make sure to obtain specific consent before the transfer is put in place even if this occurs after the collection of the data has been made)
> With regard to transfers necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller, it should be borne in mind that personal data may only be transferred when the transfer is occasional. It would have to be established on a case-by-case basis whether data transfers would be determined as “occasional” or “non-occasional”. In any case, this derogation can only be relied upon when the transfer is objectively necessary for the performance of the contract
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/20200...
This is from the European Data Protection Board FAQ following the Schrems II ruling. Does the text of the new ruling say something different?
> 8) Can I rely on one of the derogations of Article 49 GDPR to transfer data to the U.S.?
> it should be recalled that when transfers are based on the consent of the data subject, it should be ... specific for the particular data transfer or set of transfers (meaning that the data exporter must make sure to obtain specific consent before the transfer is put in place even if this occurs after the collection of the data has been made)
> With regard to transfers necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller, it should be borne in mind that personal data may only be transferred when the transfer is occasional. It would have to be established on a case-by-case basis whether data transfers would be determined as “occasional” or “non-occasional”. In any case, this derogation can only be relied upon when the transfer is objectively necessary for the performance of the contract
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/20200...
This isn't a data localisation issue.
The EU isn't saying that personal data has to be processed only in the EU. They're saying it has to be processed somewhere with adequate standards of data protection.
The EU isn't saying that personal data has to be processed only in the EU. They're saying it has to be processed somewhere with adequate standards of data protection.
Where outside of the EU has been certified in this way?
Andorra, Argentina, Canada, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland , the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.
As long as international companies have the option to exclude any local government, they can simply vote by participation. Texas requires something that a Swiss social network cannot abide? Block Texas.
This doesn't work when a law doesn't allow some foreign company to escape, though. Suppose Texas decides that toy makers are liable for toys that hurt children. A Swiss company that makes army knives for kids decides not to sell to Texas, but other people buy some and then resell them in Texas. If the original manufacturer can't avoid the local government, that's more complicated.
This doesn't work when a law doesn't allow some foreign company to escape, though. Suppose Texas decides that toy makers are liable for toys that hurt children. A Swiss company that makes army knives for kids decides not to sell to Texas, but other people buy some and then resell them in Texas. If the original manufacturer can't avoid the local government, that's more complicated.
[deleted]
Because I don't see anyone downstream agreeing with you, I just wanted to hop in and +1 that I think you're REALLY making good points throughout this thread. I think a lot of folks are having trouble imagining a world beyond "EU laws" and "US laws". If every national or even state/provincial government has its own data laws (we already have 5 states in the US with GDPR-like legislation, and more likely on the way), then we're just accelerating towards a fragmented internet __with no opt-out mechanism for the individual__. When (especially smaller) companies get weighed down by legal interpretations and the fear of violations, they're just gonna start blocking more and more clients from everywhere outside their jurisdiction. (Apologies to the world, but I literally work on software that makes it easier to resolve geolocation for web devs and, among some other reasons, one of the top ones is to block certain georegions.)
Separately, while I'm all for internet privacy and am generally aligned with the _intent_ of GDPR, having had to meet its requirements at the highest level of scale, I have no qualms saying that it's truly a _terrible_ piece of legislation. Clearly whole sections were written without any regard for technical accuracy, and it leaves a number of ambiguities and contradictions within its language that continue to go without clarification. I don't feel like getting in the weeds here, but if you ever want to see people getting in the mud about how to actually comply with it, just go take a peek at the higher-comment threads in /r/GDPR.
Personally, I'd much prefer a cascading set of standards coming from a technically oriented consortium of (ideally OSS) folks that could be enforced from the client side as much as possible, and then independently audited on the server side (like a UL certification, but for your server architecture). Most of us here are probably already using a ton of client extensions to enforce as much privacy as we can without breaking things, and if an OSS auditing standard came along for servers, it'd be sweet if I could e.g. set my browser to "EU data servers only" and have my browser give me an option to explicitly override it if I really need to (like we do today with bad SSL certs).
As for the data export and deletion controls...I get the argument that's only enforceable via regulation and government enforcement. But given the ease of data replication and laundering (made even easier in a post-ML world), I'm not optimistic that you can actually "catch" people violating it except against the absolute largest corps ("yeah, we totallyyyyyy deleted all your data, for sureeee"). Feels like it's enforceable at about the order-of-magnitude of insider trading in the US.
Separately, while I'm all for internet privacy and am generally aligned with the _intent_ of GDPR, having had to meet its requirements at the highest level of scale, I have no qualms saying that it's truly a _terrible_ piece of legislation. Clearly whole sections were written without any regard for technical accuracy, and it leaves a number of ambiguities and contradictions within its language that continue to go without clarification. I don't feel like getting in the weeds here, but if you ever want to see people getting in the mud about how to actually comply with it, just go take a peek at the higher-comment threads in /r/GDPR.
Personally, I'd much prefer a cascading set of standards coming from a technically oriented consortium of (ideally OSS) folks that could be enforced from the client side as much as possible, and then independently audited on the server side (like a UL certification, but for your server architecture). Most of us here are probably already using a ton of client extensions to enforce as much privacy as we can without breaking things, and if an OSS auditing standard came along for servers, it'd be sweet if I could e.g. set my browser to "EU data servers only" and have my browser give me an option to explicitly override it if I really need to (like we do today with bad SSL certs).
As for the data export and deletion controls...I get the argument that's only enforceable via regulation and government enforcement. But given the ease of data replication and laundering (made even easier in a post-ML world), I'm not optimistic that you can actually "catch" people violating it except against the absolute largest corps ("yeah, we totallyyyyyy deleted all your data, for sureeee"). Feels like it's enforceable at about the order-of-magnitude of insider trading in the US.
While I like the regulations on who can collect and share your data and preventing all these backdoors to the US Gov I also think these regulations make it impossible for small companies to compete with Meta, Google, etc. You can't hire enough legal and compliance experts to get it 100% right not to mention all the extra code you need to write. Maybe that's OK but my cynical side says Google and Meta lawyers write and practically hand these regs to the legislators with that in mind.
I agree, EU fuels the Corporations and blocks small companies from getting any traction, by increasing the compliance levels, without thinking stuff through.
I dont want to say, that fighting for privacy rights is a bad thing, but as small time entepreneur, they seems to be on same side.
I dont want to say, that fighting for privacy rights is a bad thing, but as small time entepreneur, they seems to be on same side.
That sort of argument sounds a lot like "Small companies should be allowed to abuse their customers because if they aren't, then they can't compete."
Not to mention if you can't move customer data out of a governance region that means you need a separate data center. Which is prohibitively expensive for a small business, but something a big corporation like Meta or Google would probably do anyway.
A "small company" facing global-scale governance challenges rather sounds like a luxury problem of big companies.
> You can't hire enough legal and compliance experts to get it 100% right not to mention all the extra code you need to write.
You don't need to hire a team, just a company. A lot of companies offer this exact service now and effectively.
For example: Drata.
You don't need to hire a team, just a company. A lot of companies offer this exact service now and effectively.
For example: Drata.
> I believe the same happens in the US, one state such as California will make progressive law changes that force companies to just apply the same standards across other states as it's less legal and regulatory burden, so effectively one state can actually change the system for everyone, no global super government required.
I almost bought a car from Carvana. They had all my info: driver's license images, SSN, etc. At the last minute they required a DocuSign signature, which I told them upfront I wouldn't use, so I canceled the deal.
Afterward, I told them I wanted all of my info deleted since we didn't do a transaction. They said they could only do that for CA residents. A CA law is not going to cause companies to follow that law for all US citizens if it's to the company's advantage not to follow it.
I almost bought a car from Carvana. They had all my info: driver's license images, SSN, etc. At the last minute they required a DocuSign signature, which I told them upfront I wouldn't use, so I canceled the deal.
Afterward, I told them I wanted all of my info deleted since we didn't do a transaction. They said they could only do that for CA residents. A CA law is not going to cause companies to follow that law for all US citizens if it's to the company's advantage not to follow it.
> What I believe is happening here is the EU is setting a new standard that the US and UK and others will have to follow if they want to do business in the EU, unless they invest millions in infrastructure and staff.
That’s called the Brussels effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect), and indeed is similar to the California effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect)
That’s called the Brussels effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect), and indeed is similar to the California effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect)
I just heard Eric Hughes give a talk about this and the non-regulatory solution was pretty simple, flood the field with so much bullshit that the data collected is worthless. Sadly most people happily give away their most personal information for "free" email, chat and search engine. I don't think most people are willing to actually pay for the services provided to them in exchange for their detailed personal information, maybe people's opinions will change but I wouldn't bet on it and meaningful regulation written by lobbyists and voted on by octogenarians probably won't happen either.
Do you have any examples of software that currently accomplishes this for any services that are based around user profiles, often tied to a phone number?
Especially for unilateral users of such software? (if I could convince fellow proprietary service-users to use some obfuscating software that generated/filtered a bunch of fake communications, I could just convince them to use Free software instead of the proprietary service)
Especially for unilateral users of such software? (if I could convince fellow proprietary service-users to use some obfuscating software that generated/filtered a bunch of fake communications, I could just convince them to use Free software instead of the proprietary service)
Any details on that talk or the venue it was presented in? I don't find any likely recent context from a Web search (and Hughes's name is increasingly colliding with others).
That said, effective chaffing is difficult and does little to mask methods used to surveil or profile. It's also highly ineffective against strong-intent signalling such as purchase behaviours, unless someone is willing to buy items of little interest or purchase-and-return with sufficient aggressiveness to likely provoke not only vendor cancellation but fraud or criminal investigation.
Cory Doctorow from a Reddit AMA a couple of years ago on chaffing's ineffectiveness:
Chaffing turns out to be pretty easy to detect, because people aren't random - generating data that is both plausible and doesn't leak anything is really hard.
The most common solution to this from information theory is to broadcast a steady volume of noise that is sometimes mixed with signal: for example, you start a Twitter feed that tweets out exactly 280 characters of random noise every minute. Sometimes, though, you push ciphertexts into that stream. Your counterparty analyzes EVERYTHING you tweet, looking for data that decrypts with their private key and your public key. Adversaries can't tell who you're talking to, nor can they tell when you're talking.
This is much harder to do with something like your web traffic....
<https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/j444u4/how_to_dest...>
And it's even harder with purchase history, postal mail, or phone-call activity.
In practice, the method would be unavailable to much of the public, and of and by itself a strong indication of surveillance interest, much as use of, say, PGP is long reported to be.
That said, effective chaffing is difficult and does little to mask methods used to surveil or profile. It's also highly ineffective against strong-intent signalling such as purchase behaviours, unless someone is willing to buy items of little interest or purchase-and-return with sufficient aggressiveness to likely provoke not only vendor cancellation but fraud or criminal investigation.
Cory Doctorow from a Reddit AMA a couple of years ago on chaffing's ineffectiveness:
Chaffing turns out to be pretty easy to detect, because people aren't random - generating data that is both plausible and doesn't leak anything is really hard.
The most common solution to this from information theory is to broadcast a steady volume of noise that is sometimes mixed with signal: for example, you start a Twitter feed that tweets out exactly 280 characters of random noise every minute. Sometimes, though, you push ciphertexts into that stream. Your counterparty analyzes EVERYTHING you tweet, looking for data that decrypts with their private key and your public key. Adversaries can't tell who you're talking to, nor can they tell when you're talking.
This is much harder to do with something like your web traffic....
<https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/j444u4/how_to_dest...>
And it's even harder with purchase history, postal mail, or phone-call activity.
In practice, the method would be unavailable to much of the public, and of and by itself a strong indication of surveillance interest, much as use of, say, PGP is long reported to be.
You didn’t answer the question . How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are?
This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
> You didn’t answer the question . How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are?
You do not, but that is not what the ruling is about. This ruling is about Meta using standard contracts (SCC) to achieve mass acceptance for personal data transfers of EU citizens out of the EU. Which you are not allowed to do with the GDPR. If Meta had obtained individual permissions from you on your various personal information, then it would not have been illegal for Meta to share your information globally.
This isn’t really about what you share on FB either, it’s about all the data that Meta applications gather about you (often without your knowledge) that they then send outside the EU with a very generalised permission that you probably auto-accepted when you signed up. It’s exactly because the EU regulators know that people auto-accept those general agreements without ever reading them that the law has been made to make such agreements non-GDPR-compliant. The reasoning is that you cannot sign away your rights without understanding what you are signing away, and if corporations don’t want to make sure you know what you are agreeing to then the corporations are in violations of EU law.
You do not, but that is not what the ruling is about. This ruling is about Meta using standard contracts (SCC) to achieve mass acceptance for personal data transfers of EU citizens out of the EU. Which you are not allowed to do with the GDPR. If Meta had obtained individual permissions from you on your various personal information, then it would not have been illegal for Meta to share your information globally.
This isn’t really about what you share on FB either, it’s about all the data that Meta applications gather about you (often without your knowledge) that they then send outside the EU with a very generalised permission that you probably auto-accepted when you signed up. It’s exactly because the EU regulators know that people auto-accept those general agreements without ever reading them that the law has been made to make such agreements non-GDPR-compliant. The reasoning is that you cannot sign away your rights without understanding what you are signing away, and if corporations don’t want to make sure you know what you are agreeing to then the corporations are in violations of EU law.
> How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are?
Why is it important that this can be done? The "social graph" is for the benefit of the likes of Facebook. You already know who your friends are and how to talk with them. You don't need a third-party social graph for that.
Why is it important that this can be done? The "social graph" is for the benefit of the likes of Facebook. You already know who your friends are and how to talk with them. You don't need a third-party social graph for that.
So Facebook and no other social media platform should exist? Or are you saying that a messaging platform shouldn’t store messages between a user in the EU and a group of users in the US?
> How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are?
On-Demand, i.e., if one of your friends actually visited your "node" (profile or whatever) and also by following the law for the country the data originates from, no need to store anything in the target country – i.e., like most of the internet already works (or worked), it's really not _that_ hard.
> This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
Meh, maybe some are clueless, but one sees also a lot head scratching and scapegoating from people that don't bother to even think on solutions or what the actual laws are about (i.e., are themselves clueless about the actual implications).
On-Demand, i.e., if one of your friends actually visited your "node" (profile or whatever) and also by following the law for the country the data originates from, no need to store anything in the target country – i.e., like most of the internet already works (or worked), it's really not _that_ hard.
> This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
Meh, maybe some are clueless, but one sees also a lot head scratching and scapegoating from people that don't bother to even think on solutions or what the actual laws are about (i.e., are themselves clueless about the actual implications).
And what happens when I send a private message from the EU to someone in the US via Messenger?
It needs to simultaneously accessible to UK law enforcement and not reachable from another country. Come on Meta, can't you solve that really easy one?
bans UK
If you sent that, it's OK to have the data transferred, like I can already send a letter with a USB pen drive to a friend in America without anyone in the chain being liable for handling that, as long as they don't leak to third parties, i.e., anyone I did not choose to give my data.
As said, it's really not that hard.
As said, it's really not that hard.
Well, a private message sent via Messenger is not personal data (PII), so is not covered by GDPR. This is a very simple concept that critics of GDPR seems to ignore or get wrong over and over again.
It’s not about protecting all data. It’s about protecting personal data.
https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/
It’s not about protecting all data. It’s about protecting personal data.
https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/
How is a private message not personal data?
There's literally a definition of PII at the link given above, which could tell you that. So stop asking stupid questions.
So yes you’re right my personal messages attached to my user name doesn’t relate to an identifiable person.
“which is any piece of information that relates to an identifiable person.”
“which is any piece of information that relates to an identifiable person.”
No, you are misinterpreting what the law is saying. The purpose of the law is to protect from the collection of data points (height, age, political opinions, etc.) about individuals. Sure, a private message between two individuals can contain such information in a way that can be associated with a specific individual. If Facebook would scan all private messages for such data and store it in unencrypted form, then yes, they would violate GDPR. But a simple text message between two individuals does not by default violate GDPR.
A very important aspect of GDPR is a consideration for the purpose of the processing of data. If your company is providing an international messaging service in order to harvest sensitive personal data from private messages, then yes that is very much illegal. But if the purpose is simply to provide a messaging service and you are taking the appropriate steps to secure the data of your users, then it is not illegal.
A very important aspect of GDPR is a consideration for the purpose of the processing of data. If your company is providing an international messaging service in order to harvest sensitive personal data from private messages, then yes that is very much illegal. But if the purpose is simply to provide a messaging service and you are taking the appropriate steps to secure the data of your users, then it is not illegal.
> your company is providing an international messaging service in order to harvest sensitive personal data from private messages, then yes that is very much illegal
The government hates competition. Only they should have the right to do that and force back doors on encryption standards…
The government hates competition. Only they should have the right to do that and force back doors on encryption standards…
If the message is really private (i.e. end-to-end encrypted) then Facebook can't see it , and if it can't see it, or process it in any way then the GDPR does not apply. And if Facebook does access the message and stores it on their servers in plaintext form then that's their (bad) choice, and they should be held responsible for it.
So now we agree that asking about private messages is not a “stupid” question?
And then if they do e2e encryption where the EU can’t get to it, that runs afoul of another proposed EU regulation.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv...
And then if they do e2e encryption where the EU can’t get to it, that runs afoul of another proposed EU regulation.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv...
The message is sent to the EU bureaucrats so they can scan it for X, where X is initially child porno but will surely expand. Your friend just sees a gray box with the text “Displaying this message would violate the GDPR.”
It’s the perfect user experience!
It’s the perfect user experience!
GDPR states, "The storage limitation principles state that you should keep personal data for as long as the purpose is unfulfilled"
Seems like FB was storing a little bit more than just social graph and for a bit longer.
Seems like FB was storing a little bit more than just social graph and for a bit longer.
Counterpoint: how do we govern global issues with a global government? I’m not sure it’s any easier.
I'll try a coding analogy, as I saw your bio says you've done a lot of coding. The analogy may be off, and I assume you've done a lot more coding than me so I'm curious to hear your reaction.
Imagine coding a program and there are no variables or methods with global scope. If you want to know the number of users in the program, you have to add up all the user variables from each object and each object defines a user in a different way. Also, to access the user variables in each object, you need to use different methods. Now imagine there are 190+ different objects. Some are similar, some different, and they are constantly changing in their structure.
How would you be able to run global functions?
I imagine having standardized ways to access the objects (variables and methods within) could really help improve the program.
If those 190+ objects are not objects but libraries with different developers and different API structures and maybe languages, it can get even more complex without some coordination from a higher-level perspective.
How does that analogy land for you?
Imagine coding a program and there are no variables or methods with global scope. If you want to know the number of users in the program, you have to add up all the user variables from each object and each object defines a user in a different way. Also, to access the user variables in each object, you need to use different methods. Now imagine there are 190+ different objects. Some are similar, some different, and they are constantly changing in their structure.
How would you be able to run global functions?
I imagine having standardized ways to access the objects (variables and methods within) could really help improve the program.
If those 190+ objects are not objects but libraries with different developers and different API structures and maybe languages, it can get even more complex without some coordination from a higher-level perspective.
How does that analogy land for you?
Amazing counterpoint!
The UN kind of does that
The UN is not a government. It is a mostly voluntary organization that exists purely so we never end up in a situation like we did in 1914 or 1939 where the countries of the world are just not at table talking to each other.
Yes, the UN does lots of things. But it has no power to do those things without the voluntary buy-in of member states.
Yes, the UN does lots of things. But it has no power to do those things without the voluntary buy-in of member states.
karol(1)
A global government isn't really possible. I think the fundamental issue is that a tribe of "everyone" doesn't really work without a counterpart. I think the solution begins by colonizing Mars, a few moons, maybe some asteroids.
Edit: fine, more Mars land for me!
Edit: fine, more Mars land for me!
I think a better way to frame this is “Is it possible to use the rule of law across national boundaries?” Clearly the answer is currently a qualified “yes”: Laws, treaties, etc do exist and are commonly used. The areas that are addressed are clearly not uniform, nor can we rely on all nations to participate, and the enforcement of laws across national boundaries are extremely tricky and currently limited. However, that should not stop us as a planet from trying to improve global cooperation through the law, rather we should look at it as “more work to do”.
Global government is only the extension of local, national and regional government. The E.U. already is a kind of "international" government in that it creates de facto laws, rules and regulations that supersede the laws of its member states. Similar constructs (though not as advanced) exist i.e. in West and East Africa.
A global government is an entirely logical next step and could be a very valuable asset when dealing with truly global issues.
A global government is an entirely logical next step and could be a very valuable asset when dealing with truly global issues.
If I'm living under a dictatorship, at least I can try to escape and move to a better place. If a global government becomes tyrannical, where do we go?
Such an idea is centuries away in the best case scenario.
Such an idea is centuries away in the best case scenario.
How about you stay and work towards changing the government? This is literally how every democracy has developed. It is also the reality for several Billion people today. Most can't just up and leave if they disagree with their governments. Borders are not open for most people.
I'm far from convinced that a global government could possibly be a good thing. I think that a large part of the political problems in the US, for instance, is because its trying to govern too many people of very different and often incompatible cultures and values.
The magic word is "subsidiarity": the principle that political decisions should always be made on the most local level that still enables their resolution. Under that principle, a (democratically legitimized) world government would only be tasked with creating laws pertaining to truly global issues (i.e. setting limits for the emissions of CO2). I agree with other comments here that this is unrealistic in the near future. But that doesn't mean that it is not a good idea.
The trick is coming up with a system where the upper layers of government don't try to take over the matters from the lower ones. The problem, fundamentally, is deciding what "pertains to truly global issues" - in a democracy, it's ultimately the people doing that, so if you can convince them that whatever local problem X is really important, it can become "global" all of a sudden.
This kind of stuff is usually set out in constitutions or basic laws which in turn can be enforced by courts – the usual division of power stuff. You could also introduce some sort of check on the power of a global government. In Germany, parliament has to get approval of the majority of state governments for certain laws to enter into force, for example. Same is true for the E.U.: The E.U. parliament and the council of the national governments of E.U. member states both have to agree to new laws and regulations in most cases, which guarantees that either one can't ride roughshod over the core interests of the other.
It usually is, but long-term there's a trend of, shall we say, creatively reinterpreting what's written to the same effect - just look at US. Some would argue that EU shows the same trend, although it's young enough that this doesn't manifest quite so much.
I’d actually argue that the increasing centralization of power in the U.S. is due to the increasing nationalization of political issues and the requirement for nation-wide resolutions to problems. The way it has expressed itself (strong presidential executive instead of parliamentary democracy) is probably due to the way the U.S. constitution was originally framed and some random events asking the way.
But that's the thing - why are these all suddenly "national issues"? Even healthcare can be done state by state (Canada of all places did it that way, and their system is still fundamentally province-centric), never mind all the culture war stuff. Is it really the most local level on which these matters need to be resolved? Or are they deliberately pushed there for political games?
You can have plenty of tribalism and conflict between people under the same government.
>> how do we govern global issues without a global government?
By consensus. By willing participation of all. By individual countries actively deciding to operate in the agreed best interests of the whole. And when countries act egregiously badly, subsets of the larger group band together to employ military force against them. Government can exist without rigid structures. The enforcement of norms by the collective is a form of government. This is what they mean when diplomats speak of threats to the "international system" even though we lack any official world government.
By consensus. By willing participation of all. By individual countries actively deciding to operate in the agreed best interests of the whole. And when countries act egregiously badly, subsets of the larger group band together to employ military force against them. Government can exist without rigid structures. The enforcement of norms by the collective is a form of government. This is what they mean when diplomats speak of threats to the "international system" even though we lack any official world government.
Well, governments also can declare wars, send chaps off to die in them, and lock people in boxes for not following rules written down by the governments. They can also collect money from people under same threat of box-locking.
Not every "enforcement of norms by the collective" (what's the collective?) can do that.
Not every "enforcement of norms by the collective" (what's the collective?) can do that.
World government doesn't mean world peace. Wars and locking people up are all part of legitimate government.
A government by definition has a monopoly on state violence. If constituent members are going to war against each other then the so-called global government is not actually a government, it's more of a voluntary association similar to the UN that doesn't actually have much real power.
I'm answering your comment! Did you forget the context my friend? : - )
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed. I can conceive of some verifiable processing package that ensures data can be processed wherever and still meet regulations. Can that be part of the future?
Not with US laws. The whole problem are US laws essentially allowing government to force any company to disclose whatever they need with little reason. That's the problem. That the moment data are processed by US company (not even neccesarily in US), US government have right to violate privacy
Not with US laws. The whole problem are US laws essentially allowing government to force any company to disclose whatever they need with little reason. That's the problem. That the moment data are processed by US company (not even neccesarily in US), US government have right to violate privacy
You seem to imply that none of the EU member countries are violating their citizens' internet privacy on a regular basis. I recognize that there are certain countries with _much_ stronger privacy protections in place, and that might not have something on the scale of FISA (from some of the compliance work I've done in the past, Germany comes to mind, but I'm sure there are a strong set of others).
But I'm curious if you explicitly believe that EU/EEA member countries unilaterally _don't_ spy on their citizens. Because I'd be inclined to say that's unlikely (at best) given what we know about the nature of intelligence organizations, namely that they're basically data lake vacuums in the 21st century.
But I'm curious if you explicitly believe that EU/EEA member countries unilaterally _don't_ spy on their citizens. Because I'd be inclined to say that's unlikely (at best) given what we know about the nature of intelligence organizations, namely that they're basically data lake vacuums in the 21st century.
The question is what is legal or not.
The US has laws that give them the legal right to snoop on any data about EU (avd other foreign) citizens.
Those laws make it impossible to follow EU privacy laws as a US company.
One of the two have to give, and the US should make exceptions for EU citizens, or rescind the CLOUD act.
The US has laws that give them the legal right to snoop on any data about EU (avd other foreign) citizens.
Those laws make it impossible to follow EU privacy laws as a US company.
One of the two have to give, and the US should make exceptions for EU citizens, or rescind the CLOUD act.
This is the crux of the issue.
It's frustrating how many people are stuck in this loop, where they think any company can "easily" follow GDPR by just swapping data regions with their cloud provider. It's not that simple and never was.
This is a broader political spat between two of the largest government bodies in the world, not about facebook.
The EU is not the global privacy champion everyone makes them out to be. They just don't like that US companies can access EU citizens data specifically (since most of the internet is run by US companies). Whether they're okay snooping on their own citizens themselves is a separate issue--they've also regularly challenged encryption domestically.
I'm also certain the EU is not upset that certain 3 letter agencies in the US have access to Russian's private data when in the context of the war in the Ukraine. Like all governments, the EU only cares about their own interests, not about the philosophical idea of privacy in general.
It's frustrating how many people are stuck in this loop, where they think any company can "easily" follow GDPR by just swapping data regions with their cloud provider. It's not that simple and never was.
This is a broader political spat between two of the largest government bodies in the world, not about facebook.
The EU is not the global privacy champion everyone makes them out to be. They just don't like that US companies can access EU citizens data specifically (since most of the internet is run by US companies). Whether they're okay snooping on their own citizens themselves is a separate issue--they've also regularly challenged encryption domestically.
I'm also certain the EU is not upset that certain 3 letter agencies in the US have access to Russian's private data when in the context of the war in the Ukraine. Like all governments, the EU only cares about their own interests, not about the philosophical idea of privacy in general.
Idk if they have the “right” to violate privacy (or whatever) I think that the US government just does it and they don’t care.
It would be great if the US (and Chinese) governments didn’t act in this way (I’m sure the EU would act in the same way if they had tech companies) but it seems to be their nature.
It would be great if the US (and Chinese) governments didn’t act in this way (I’m sure the EU would act in the same way if they had tech companies) but it seems to be their nature.
> Idk if they have the “right” to violate privacy (or whatever) I think that the US government just does it and they don’t care.
No, the problem is that the US has specific laws that allows the government to require companies to secretly violate privacy, and punish them if they refuse, or even for just disclosing that the request was made.
No, the problem is that the US has specific laws that allows the government to require companies to secretly violate privacy, and punish them if they refuse, or even for just disclosing that the request was made.
I am pretty sure China and Russia have similar laws. Its just if a Chinese company tried putting a canary on their annual report they would find someone explain the difference between "letter" and "spirit" very clearly.
The administrations of china and the USA are different of course, but not so different. The big difference is in the institutions and norms.
The administrations of china and the USA are different of course, but not so different. The big difference is in the institutions and norms.
> I am pretty sure China and Russia have similar laws.
Transferring the private data of EU citizens to China or Russia would also be a major crime.
> The big difference is in the institutions and norms.
In theory yes; however the US has a strong norm of following the letter of the law, so what the letter of the US law says is important.
Transferring the private data of EU citizens to China or Russia would also be a major crime.
> The big difference is in the institutions and norms.
In theory yes; however the US has a strong norm of following the letter of the law, so what the letter of the US law says is important.
" the US has a strong norm of following the letter of the law"
The US Government doesnt
Yes they do - why else would they write so many careful loopholes into their laws?
Then they just ignore the law altogether. Like FBI making almost 300k illegal searches. Because they can. https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2023/05/21/f...
There will be no consequences whatsoever to anyone involved. The laws are for you to obey and for them to prosecute you, not the other way around.
There will be no consequences whatsoever to anyone involved. The laws are for you to obey and for them to prosecute you, not the other way around.
"...if [The EU] had tech companies"?
So you almost had me there. First of all your points are all valid. Where something felt wierd to me was the edges. What is the exact value for customers in this edgeset being maintained and worse harvested, I mean processed? Today we have edges outside the context of a social network - my contacts in email, phone book etc. And those "edges" (not the target node) belong to - you guessed it - me. Nobody should harvest it without consent and/or maliciously. (There is the whole argument about internet ceasing to exist without ads and nobody would pay yada yada which I felt was too reductionist). If somebody needs to harvest it, get consent and let user decide how, where, when why etc.
So in this context is your con really a con?
So in this context is your con really a con?
> And those "edges" (not the target node) belong to - you guessed it - me.
For a contact in an email adress book, that makes sense. But for a "friend" relationship in Facebook, which side owns that edge? Or how about a message sent from someone in the EU to someone in the US, who owns that, the sender or the recipient? And if it is just one, does that mean that different messages for the same conversation have to be stored in different regions?
For a contact in an email adress book, that makes sense. But for a "friend" relationship in Facebook, which side owns that edge? Or how about a message sent from someone in the EU to someone in the US, who owns that, the sender or the recipient? And if it is just one, does that mean that different messages for the same conversation have to be stored in different regions?
In this case the problem can be solved with 2 edges :) I am your friend and your are mine. Keep an edge on each side. Heck I could be your friend you may not chose to be my friend and that is fine. This gets even more fun as now both parties have to consent to only share "their" friend status with FB. Americans are forced to share their friendships, Europeans are not. Again total value for users no?
Now is this technically optimised (for the company) - no and irrelevant (IMO) in the context of how much control/power a user has. You could extend this to messages too. What messages I sent, what messages I received. I didnt send it - I dont own it. What about shared documents you say? Here users are explicitly sharing with other users for collaboration (the contents of said documents totally are of no business to the company).
See providers are providing a service(?). If the services needs to harvest data I still question who is benefiting from that harvesting? If the user is not actually seeing value (apart from subsidizing the cost of the internet) are we then not just using technical/UX complexities to justify a low-value (to the user) solution?
Now is this technically optimised (for the company) - no and irrelevant (IMO) in the context of how much control/power a user has. You could extend this to messages too. What messages I sent, what messages I received. I didnt send it - I dont own it. What about shared documents you say? Here users are explicitly sharing with other users for collaboration (the contents of said documents totally are of no business to the company).
See providers are providing a service(?). If the services needs to harvest data I still question who is benefiting from that harvesting? If the user is not actually seeing value (apart from subsidizing the cost of the internet) are we then not just using technical/UX complexities to justify a low-value (to the user) solution?
> For a contact in an email adress book, that makes sense. But for a "friend" relationship in Facebook, which side owns that edge?
I don't see where there's any ambiguity on this issue. Each individual has the right to not be subjected to spying and monitoring, which includes collecting personal and private information. A social graph is not a data dump where you are a mere drop in the ocean. A social graph is an ocean of personal and private data collected from you. Therefore, it's quite obvious that individuals have the right to not have all this ocean of personal and private data collected on them, specially without their explicit and informed consent, and they should have the right to force anyone to delete this info, both all or subsets, automatically and reliable and verifiably.
Just because I don't mind hearing what my aunt has to say about what she baked or who she chatted with, that does not grant you the right to get my credit score or where I went to highschool with or who I met years ago or where I lived, just because third parties and other edge nodes in a social graph posted that information and data that enabled you to piece it together. What is there to be discussed?
I don't see where there's any ambiguity on this issue. Each individual has the right to not be subjected to spying and monitoring, which includes collecting personal and private information. A social graph is not a data dump where you are a mere drop in the ocean. A social graph is an ocean of personal and private data collected from you. Therefore, it's quite obvious that individuals have the right to not have all this ocean of personal and private data collected on them, specially without their explicit and informed consent, and they should have the right to force anyone to delete this info, both all or subsets, automatically and reliable and verifiably.
Just because I don't mind hearing what my aunt has to say about what she baked or who she chatted with, that does not grant you the right to get my credit score or where I went to highschool with or who I met years ago or where I lived, just because third parties and other edge nodes in a social graph posted that information and data that enabled you to piece it together. What is there to be discussed?
Let’s be clearer about what a Facebook ‘edge’ is. It’s something like:
Can Facebook tell me that Alice tagged Bob in the photo? Can Facebook show me the photo I was tagged in? Can Facebook tell me Bob liked it?
Alice tagged you in a photo with Bob
Bob liked the photo
Can Facebook tell me that Alice tagged Bob in the photo? Can Facebook show me the photo I was tagged in? Can Facebook tell me Bob liked it?
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed. I can conceive of some verifiable processing package that ensures data can be processed wherever and still meet regulations. Can that be part of the future?
To an extent GDPR already allows this. The fines are only occurring because Facebook is transferring data into a jurisdiction which doesn’t have strong enough data protection laws to satisfy GDPR.
In the U.S. case specifically, it’s issues around laws that allow the U.S. government to force U.S. companies to handover data arbitrarily with very little (if any) due process. If the U.S. modified their draconian laws to ensure that everyone was afforded due process before their data was scooped up by the U.S. government, then there wouldn’t be an issue.
Unfortunately verifiable processes packages don’t solve the fundamental problem that the various three letter U.S. agencies can send a secret order, with effectively zero judicial oversight, to Facebook and compel them to handover data, plus gag Facebook from telling the individuals about the demand.
To an extent GDPR already allows this. The fines are only occurring because Facebook is transferring data into a jurisdiction which doesn’t have strong enough data protection laws to satisfy GDPR.
In the U.S. case specifically, it’s issues around laws that allow the U.S. government to force U.S. companies to handover data arbitrarily with very little (if any) due process. If the U.S. modified their draconian laws to ensure that everyone was afforded due process before their data was scooped up by the U.S. government, then there wouldn’t be an issue.
Unfortunately verifiable processes packages don’t solve the fundamental problem that the various three letter U.S. agencies can send a secret order, with effectively zero judicial oversight, to Facebook and compel them to handover data, plus gag Facebook from telling the individuals about the demand.
There’s a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines. Its possible this fine was intended to pre-empt the passing of any new frameworks and cash in on the uncertainty in the interim.
Fining foreign big tech over EU privacy nuances is like taking candy from a baby. The narrative zeitgeist on both sides of the pond is in support (stories of rigged elections for 4 years turned public opinion brilliantly).
While protecting your citizens rights is a noble cause, its hard not to see the moral hazard inherent in this approach.
Abusing your position as a desirable market to impose post-hoc tariffs via an endless stream of fines is questionable IMO. Especially while the US provides Europe with its extremely expensive military support blanket (NATO) against the angry bear at its door.
Fining foreign big tech over EU privacy nuances is like taking candy from a baby. The narrative zeitgeist on both sides of the pond is in support (stories of rigged elections for 4 years turned public opinion brilliantly).
While protecting your citizens rights is a noble cause, its hard not to see the moral hazard inherent in this approach.
Abusing your position as a desirable market to impose post-hoc tariffs via an endless stream of fines is questionable IMO. Especially while the US provides Europe with its extremely expensive military support blanket (NATO) against the angry bear at its door.
> Abusing your position as a desirable market to impose post-hoc tariffs via an endless stream of fines is questionable IMO.
There's a simple scenario in which Meta wouldn't have had to pay these fines: Don't break the law. And don't continue breaking the law after being told to stop it. It's not abusive to remind companies that actions have consequences in the language they understand and respect.
There's a simple scenario in which Meta wouldn't have had to pay these fines: Don't break the law. And don't continue breaking the law after being told to stop it. It's not abusive to remind companies that actions have consequences in the language they understand and respect.
Do you honestly believe that Meta's hundreds (possibly thousands) of both full-time and contracted out lawyers would collectively advise them to break the law? Knowing full well the outcome would be $Billions in fines?
EU to US data transfers used to be okay for years, then there was a single ruling that brought that into question. Because government moves slow, there hasn't been a new framework implemented. Ruling for Billions in fines during the interim, while the US government and EU are still negotiating the details of the new framework is not an environment conducive to full compliance. US companies would essentially need to stop operating in the EU altogether if they wanted to be fully compliant.
Combine this with giant companies which also are slow moving (albeit faster than government) and you have a recipe for never-ending fines no matter how much you try to comply in good faith.
EU to US data transfers used to be okay for years, then there was a single ruling that brought that into question. Because government moves slow, there hasn't been a new framework implemented. Ruling for Billions in fines during the interim, while the US government and EU are still negotiating the details of the new framework is not an environment conducive to full compliance. US companies would essentially need to stop operating in the EU altogether if they wanted to be fully compliant.
Combine this with giant companies which also are slow moving (albeit faster than government) and you have a recipe for never-ending fines no matter how much you try to comply in good faith.
Corporate lawyering is basically about finding ways to break the spirit or letter of the law without being punished for it. Or to limit the punishment so that it is exceeded by the likely profit of breaking the law. So yes, Meta's thousands of lawyers probably recommend breaking (or "interpreting" certain laws in certain ways all the time because the cost/benefit analysis makes it worth it. And sometimes they miscalculate and the fines are larger than the profit or result in some unexpected political blowback. See also Apple's approach to its App Store and payment policies.
EU to US data transfers were questionable for years, until a whole string of rulings through several levels of national and E.U. courts made clear that they weren't under some circumstances. Other companies have found ways to deal with that, Meta obviously could have, but chose not to (because profits). One obvious way would be for Meta to save E.U. customer data on E.U. servers exclusively, splitting the social graph (and advertising shadow profiles, which likely is what they really care about). Good faith does not enter into the equation, would be my guess.
EU to US data transfers were questionable for years, until a whole string of rulings through several levels of national and E.U. courts made clear that they weren't under some circumstances. Other companies have found ways to deal with that, Meta obviously could have, but chose not to (because profits). One obvious way would be for Meta to save E.U. customer data on E.U. servers exclusively, splitting the social graph (and advertising shadow profiles, which likely is what they really care about). Good faith does not enter into the equation, would be my guess.
There was also a grace period during which time Meta made no substantive efforts to come into compliance. If Meta had even a half-baked EU solution they would not be so thoroughly and repeatedly punished.
Yeah, standing up a data center is not trivial, but Meta also hires the best in the world. Move fast and break things. In this case they didn’t even move at a medium speed, so they get no sympathy from me.
Yeah, standing up a data center is not trivial, but Meta also hires the best in the world. Move fast and break things. In this case they didn’t even move at a medium speed, so they get no sympathy from me.
> Do you honestly believe that Meta's hundreds (possibly thousands) of both full-time and contracted out lawyers would collectively advise them to break the law? Knowing full well the outcome would be $Billions in fines?
Yes, absolutely. Laws are never clear and require human beings to interpret.
Lawyers jobs are about assessing risk. While they might not have explicitly said "you will get fined $B", they will definitely say "here is the likelihood that the EU fines you" and then meta management would make a strategic (e.g. do we want to risk this based on how much money we can profit) decision based on that.
Yes, absolutely. Laws are never clear and require human beings to interpret.
Lawyers jobs are about assessing risk. While they might not have explicitly said "you will get fined $B", they will definitely say "here is the likelihood that the EU fines you" and then meta management would make a strategic (e.g. do we want to risk this based on how much money we can profit) decision based on that.
> US companies would essentially need to stop operating in the EU altogether if they wanted to be fully compliant.
That's exactly what they should've done to not break the law while there was no legal basis for what they were doing.
They didn't. Now they suffer the consequences for breaking the law.
That's exactly what they should've done to not break the law while there was no legal basis for what they were doing.
They didn't. Now they suffer the consequences for breaking the law.
I believe they can still at any point stop operating in the EU and not pay the fine? How would the EU implement the fine if Meta pulled out? I thought their leverage was just the threat of blocking the service in the EU.
Meta has plenty of EU-based assets which are not liquid enough to just pull out in a matter of months. The EU and national governments would also likely have options under insolvency laws and criminal statutes to freeze some of Meta's assets in the EU if the company made an attempt to pull out to avoid some fines. Of course Meta won't. The EU is a valuable market and even if Meta would stop making any profit (they won't), it can't just leave that market to the competition.
I guess if no Facebook exec ever wants to touch European soil again, that is an option.
Wouldn’t this have to be a criminal case for execs to be personally liable? I assume it isn’t a criminal case?
It's not, but not paying a fine can quickly become a criminal offense.
Does this apply to foreign companies? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
If it was a domestic company, of course, assets could just be seized to pay the fine plus whatever non payment penalty. Is there a criminal charge after asset seizure? Or does this just never happen because there is no incentive to do it domestically?
If it was a domestic company, of course, assets could just be seized to pay the fine plus whatever non payment penalty. Is there a criminal charge after asset seizure? Or does this just never happen because there is no incentive to do it domestically?
Not a lawyer, but shutting down a subsidiary to avoid overwhelming fines is de facto messing with the insolvency laws, isn't it? At least in Germany that is a criminal offense for which the executives of the (parent) company are ultimately liable.
Plus, Meta actually is a domestic company in the E.U. They handle all their E.U. business through an Irish subsidiary (which is why the Irish data protection agency is responsible for all of this) and they also have subsidiaries to manage political and customer relations in many other E.U. countries, as well as presumably data centers, etc. Removing all of this would be a big project and would give government agencies plenty of time to seize assets. These assets could also include non-tangibles, i.e. the .de/.fr domains for their websites.
Plus, Meta actually is a domestic company in the E.U. They handle all their E.U. business through an Irish subsidiary (which is why the Irish data protection agency is responsible for all of this) and they also have subsidiaries to manage political and customer relations in many other E.U. countries, as well as presumably data centers, etc. Removing all of this would be a big project and would give government agencies plenty of time to seize assets. These assets could also include non-tangibles, i.e. the .de/.fr domains for their websites.
The law is almost a moving target, based on the whims of the current political zeitgeist and public opinion.
And law isn't binary, yes/no. Much US law is very murky and ambiguous. It takes litigation and court action to actually figure out what the poorly worded laws mean. Congress is really bad at creating law for some reason.
And law isn't binary, yes/no. Much US law is very murky and ambiguous. It takes litigation and court action to actually figure out what the poorly worded laws mean. Congress is really bad at creating law for some reason.
The cost of setting up additional data centers in Europe and re-architecting your application with a different replication strategy is probably 10x-50x the fine. It would also take years and a sizable fraction of the engineering team to make it happen and there will be significant performance and reliability issues throughout the process. Easier to pay the fine and lobby for rules changes for a decade.
$1.3bil is a huge sum of money. To put that into perspective you could pay 260 engineers $500k a year for 10 years with that money.
Or 260 engineers $1mil a year for 5 years with that money.
You honestly think it would take it would 2600-13000 engineers 10 years to do the work needed for compliance?
Or 260 engineers $1mil a year for 5 years with that money.
You honestly think it would take it would 2600-13000 engineers 10 years to do the work needed for compliance?
who says Meta will pay this fine? they will litigate until the end of times.
> There’s a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines.
this will likely be found to be unlawful too in the way the last two were
the EU commission shouldn't be creating frameworks that it knows are unlawful (definition of malfeasance?)
this will likely be found to be unlawful too in the way the last two were
the EU commission shouldn't be creating frameworks that it knows are unlawful (definition of malfeasance?)
Why not? It keeps bureaucrats employed. Thousands of them.
> a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines
What specifically has changed about US law relating to mass surveillance of foreign nationals that is going to make this one work?
What specifically has changed about US law relating to mass surveillance of foreign nationals that is going to make this one work?
Most likely even that, if and when it will be done will have flaws that sooner or later will cause the fall
Purely from a logical perspective, preventing the data of a company operating in the United States and Europe from contaminating or coming into contact is a pure utopia no matter how much effort it puts into goal or any other company operating in the same or similar field. There will always be a point of contact and a way for European data to be under the lens of some American agency or body.
In addition to Facebook is not really famous for its transparency in data management so any commitment to the contrary I see it as a paper promise
NATO's excuse that because the US finances then anything is allowed is a fallacious argument.
Purely from a logical perspective, preventing the data of a company operating in the United States and Europe from contaminating or coming into contact is a pure utopia no matter how much effort it puts into goal or any other company operating in the same or similar field. There will always be a point of contact and a way for European data to be under the lens of some American agency or body.
In addition to Facebook is not really famous for its transparency in data management so any commitment to the contrary I see it as a paper promise
NATO's excuse that because the US finances then anything is allowed is a fallacious argument.
> Its possible this fine was intended to pre-empt the passing of any new frameworks and cash in on the uncertainty in the interim.
a new framework passing wouldn't retroactively legalize the transfers happening before that, so this doesn't make sense.
a new framework passing wouldn't retroactively legalize the transfers happening before that, so this doesn't make sense.
> There’s a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines.
There’s already been two attempts at this, both of which were ratified, then struck down by the ECJ.
There’s already clear indications that attempt there isn’t much better than attempt one and two, and the smart money is betting on it not being ratified, or being struck down if it is.
In the meantime it’s been illegal for a years to transfer EU data to the U.S. So even if it did suddenly become legal, those laws aren’t going to retrospect, and Facebook still engaged in blatantly illegal behaviour.
There’s already been two attempts at this, both of which were ratified, then struck down by the ECJ.
There’s already clear indications that attempt there isn’t much better than attempt one and two, and the smart money is betting on it not being ratified, or being struck down if it is.
In the meantime it’s been illegal for a years to transfer EU data to the U.S. So even if it did suddenly become legal, those laws aren’t going to retrospect, and Facebook still engaged in blatantly illegal behaviour.
>"Abusing your position as a desirable market"
Sounds like something that the US does routinely.
>"Especially while the US provides Europe with its extremely expensive military support blanket"
1) I think it is more than compensating by Europe agreeing to use USD as the reserve currency. The US gets enormous benefits as the result.
2) Angry bear seems not to be able to win over a single country. Beside the US does it for self serving reasons. It is not a charity. And if it did not I think the Europe is quite capable to create and maintain their own army and weapons.
Sounds like something that the US does routinely.
>"Especially while the US provides Europe with its extremely expensive military support blanket"
1) I think it is more than compensating by Europe agreeing to use USD as the reserve currency. The US gets enormous benefits as the result.
2) Angry bear seems not to be able to win over a single country. Beside the US does it for self serving reasons. It is not a charity. And if it did not I think the Europe is quite capable to create and maintain their own army and weapons.
> There’s a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines.
Black Books (S01E01) put it best:
> NICK VOLEUR: This new system, it's very closely modelled on the old system, isn't it?
> BERNARD BLACK: I'd go further than that, Nick, I'd say it was more or less exactly the same[.]
Given the US side of said framework is established by executive order[1] and the “court” it creates is part of the executive (much like the “ombudsperson” office that the CJEU struck down Privacy Shield over), it’s unclear if it will work, or if the Commission (an executive body who can establish these things but is subject to judicial review) is setting itself up for a Schrems III another ten years down the line for foreign-relations reasons. The EU privacy regulator very politely said it was dubious[2], while the relevant parliamentary committee[3] and later the full parliament[4] expressed open scorn.
The US diplomats, for their part, are trying for a “you too” defence[5]—which might well be factually true to some extent, just does not change anything about EU law.
> Its possible this fine was intended to pre-empt the passing of any new frameworks and cash in on the uncertainty in the interim.
As the legal basis for a transfer is fixed at the time it’s performed, a framework cannot be retroactive (but “the Commission was wrong, the transfers weren’t lawful after all” decisions can be). So while the FUD may be real, the case could just as well have been decided after the new framework had been passed.
[1] EO 14086, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-22531
[2] https://iapp.org/news/a/edpb-welcomes-improvements-to-eu-us-...
[3] https://iapp.org/news/a/meps-urge-european-commission-to-rej...
[4] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IP...
[5] https://www.politico.eu/article/washington-to-brussels-we-wa...
Black Books (S01E01) put it best:
> NICK VOLEUR: This new system, it's very closely modelled on the old system, isn't it?
> BERNARD BLACK: I'd go further than that, Nick, I'd say it was more or less exactly the same[.]
Given the US side of said framework is established by executive order[1] and the “court” it creates is part of the executive (much like the “ombudsperson” office that the CJEU struck down Privacy Shield over), it’s unclear if it will work, or if the Commission (an executive body who can establish these things but is subject to judicial review) is setting itself up for a Schrems III another ten years down the line for foreign-relations reasons. The EU privacy regulator very politely said it was dubious[2], while the relevant parliamentary committee[3] and later the full parliament[4] expressed open scorn.
The US diplomats, for their part, are trying for a “you too” defence[5]—which might well be factually true to some extent, just does not change anything about EU law.
> Its possible this fine was intended to pre-empt the passing of any new frameworks and cash in on the uncertainty in the interim.
As the legal basis for a transfer is fixed at the time it’s performed, a framework cannot be retroactive (but “the Commission was wrong, the transfers weren’t lawful after all” decisions can be). So while the FUD may be real, the case could just as well have been decided after the new framework had been passed.
[1] EO 14086, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-22531
[2] https://iapp.org/news/a/edpb-welcomes-improvements-to-eu-us-...
[3] https://iapp.org/news/a/meps-urge-european-commission-to-rej...
[4] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IP...
[5] https://www.politico.eu/article/washington-to-brussels-we-wa...
Why not do the data processing in the EU till the new framework comes into place?
How do you process data about an international social graph only in the EU? When a friend in the EU posts something, should their post not be seen in the US? What happens when I have a group conversation between friends in the US and EU?
Well, if the US and other countries don't have equivalent laws, you can move everything to the EU.
Of course, this doesn't work if another country has such a law. But if it's a smaller country, then it doesn't have as much leverage (e.g. Facebook could accept the smaller fine or pull out).
Of course, this doesn't work if another country has such a law. But if it's a smaller country, then it doesn't have as much leverage (e.g. Facebook could accept the smaller fine or pull out).
How do you move “everything” to the EU including messages sent to US citizens? What if the messages are in a group of people in the US and the EU?
What is your better suggestion: The world follows lax US law? Or anything goes, no law?
These are not acceptable options to the EU.
These are not acceptable options to the EU.
I don’t know, maybe let adults make their own informed decisions and weigh the tradeoffs versus benefits based on their own priorities instead of depending on the government?
You seem to have picked " Or anything goes, no law" which as stated above, is not acceptable to the EU.
Naïve libertarian takes like "let adults make their own informed decisions" are all fine and well, but when there's a track record of their harm that can be pointed to already, it is, as stated, a non-starter.
You do know how that worked out so far, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Your position is an ideology, and it is one with a poor track record; you're welcome to it, but thankfully you're not going to force it on Europe.
Naïve libertarian takes like "let adults make their own informed decisions" are all fine and well, but when there's a track record of their harm that can be pointed to already, it is, as stated, a non-starter.
You do know how that worked out so far, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Your position is an ideology, and it is one with a poor track record; you're welcome to it, but thankfully you're not going to force it on Europe.
So should we now pass laws that outlaw everything that can cause you harm - cigarettes? Alcohol? Gambling? Sugar? Do you also support the “war on drugs”?
How much power do you want to give the government because you are incapable of making your own decisions?
How much power do you want to give the government because you are incapable of making your own decisions?
This is a very silly straw man argument, and I'm getting whiplash from the continual changes of topic in search of a valid point.
>There’s a new EU-US data framework that’s expected to be ratified within a year which should make EU-US transfers possible again under new guidelines.
Until it's struck down by the court again.
The agreement will not - it cannot - satisfy the requirements of the GDPR and CFR unless and until the US changes its law.
Until it's struck down by the court again.
The agreement will not - it cannot - satisfy the requirements of the GDPR and CFR unless and until the US changes its law.
> The agreement will not - it cannot - satisfy the requirements of the GDPR and CFR unless and until the US changes its law.
Or unless and until the EU changes its laws.
Or unless and until the EU changes its laws.
Lets hope not, given that the stances are
US: "we demand the right to spy on anyone for any reason, except US citizens where we absolutely must recognize their constitutional rights"
EU: "we demand basic protections for the rights of our citizens"
US: "we demand the right to spy on anyone for any reason, except US citizens where we absolutely must recognize their constitutional rights"
EU: "we demand basic protections for the rights of our citizens"
Those two views sound the same? Or am I an idiot?
No. For one, even taken literally the way I wrote it it's about two different sets of people -- the EU must defend their citizens (and residents, BTW), of course!
For another, if one looks past my vague wording, the EU (or at least Germany, which I'm most familiar with) doesn't have the dogma that it's required to set up a world spanning total surveillance state, no compromises beyond the ones absolutely necessary with their own constitution (and even those are followed within a rather "liberal" framework for the three-letter-agencies: they do have all possible data they can get their hands on, just pinky-promise to not abuse it, if US citizens are impacted, in the eyes of secret courts).
For another, if one looks past my vague wording, the EU (or at least Germany, which I'm most familiar with) doesn't have the dogma that it's required to set up a world spanning total surveillance state, no compromises beyond the ones absolutely necessary with their own constitution (and even those are followed within a rather "liberal" framework for the three-letter-agencies: they do have all possible data they can get their hands on, just pinky-promise to not abuse it, if US citizens are impacted, in the eyes of secret courts).
EU does no require a warrant for taking of data from residents [0] by LE. There is little legal protection from LE in Europe, "law enforcement agencies can access the personal data of citizens of any country as long as they are involved in investigating crimes related to the European Union."
[0]: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/china/d...
[0]: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/china/d...
Why would the EU change laws about how business is supposed to be conducted in the EU?
Because 10s of millions of Europeans benefit from US services and making it easier for US services to operate benefits their citizens.
> making it easier for US services to operate benefits their citizens.
The reason we have regulations is that the opposite proved to be true.
The reason we have regulations is that the opposite proved to be true.
GDPR (and the national laws it replaced) does not exist in a vacuum, but is an implementation of ECHR art. 8, and CFREU art. 7 and 8. If it is changed, odds are it will become stronger, not weaker. And it is quite foolish to think the CFR will be changed to accommodate companies like Meta.
Yes it’s not like the EU isn’t also trying to pass laws that force every encrypted communication to have a backdoor so they can spy….
Note that you are wrong on zero Judicial oversight...as it has originally been reviewed by the courts numerous times.
And, the 5-eyes(my term) still do collect some data behind the scenes that has minimal court oversight including GDPR.
And, the 5-eyes(my term) still do collect some data behind the scenes that has minimal court oversight including GDPR.
There's two parts:
1. Hitting the big companies for the minor violations is a bit like arresting the mob boss for tax evasion. It's a lot more black and white than arguing whether they performed the right balancing test for legitimate interests (though actually they have previously been hammered for that one too).
2.
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed.
This is true, but it does affect the conflicting requirements it may be subject to. After all the Snowden revelations, it's clear the US data privacy regime is not sufficient, as the US government will take what it wants, and that's why transfers regimes to the US are repeatedly struck down.
1. Hitting the big companies for the minor violations is a bit like arresting the mob boss for tax evasion. It's a lot more black and white than arguing whether they performed the right balancing test for legitimate interests (though actually they have previously been hammered for that one too).
2.
> Where data is processed should not affect the care with which it is processed.
This is true, but it does affect the conflicting requirements it may be subject to. After all the Snowden revelations, it's clear the US data privacy regime is not sufficient, as the US government will take what it wants, and that's why transfers regimes to the US are repeatedly struck down.
The difference is that everybody agrees what the crime of the mob boss is, even if they can't prove it, whereas on Facebook people critique but there does not appear to be a consistent critique that makes sense to me.
Data privacy? That is definitely not what most people are talking about when they critique facebook. The free speech & misinformation lines of thought are directly in conflict.
Data privacy? That is definitely not what most people are talking about when they critique facebook. The free speech & misinformation lines of thought are directly in conflict.
> That is definitely not what most people are talking about when they critique facebook.
A whole lot of people are talking more about data privacy than free speech on Facebook, though. Is one discussed more than the other? I don't know -- but I suspect most are talking about neither, and which group appears to be the majority depends on which group you tend to hang around more.
A whole lot of people are talking more about data privacy than free speech on Facebook, though. Is one discussed more than the other? I don't know -- but I suspect most are talking about neither, and which group appears to be the majority depends on which group you tend to hang around more.
Schrems I was 2013, which you'll note is 3 years before the US 2016 election and the covid-19 pandemic which are the two factors that really raised the tempo around the misinformation discussion. It's also 3 years before GDPR was passed, relying on earlier european privacy law and being largely driven by private citizen campaigns (including Europe vs Facebook).
So while the contemporary US discussion is far more dominated by elderly consuming political content, that doesn't mean nobody cared about privacy. You just need to see the furor about Cambridge Analytica or the Snowden leaks to see that that is a concern.
So while the contemporary US discussion is far more dominated by elderly consuming political content, that doesn't mean nobody cared about privacy. You just need to see the furor about Cambridge Analytica or the Snowden leaks to see that that is a concern.
Data privacy is linked to misinformation however in that by tricking you to give up all your data, they know you down to a t. They then sell that info on to propaganda/misinformation outfits and ad firms who can then target too much more efficiently.
Most of the misinformation concerns have to do with what other people are posting, but then people try to contort it into a critique of the platform without saying the quiet part out loud ("we should have a mechanism for deciding on 'truths' and have platforms censor things outside of those 'truths'") because the quiet part is actually unpopular.
I'm not fan of barriers but this is coming down to "ban or regulate".
Whatever TikTok is to the USA, Meta and the rest is the same for EU. TikTok has known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the American social media and tech in general has proven links to US intelligence and mass surveillance programs. You may say that CCP is adversary and US-EU are ally but then again the US has proven to be able to elect anti European government, so EU can't afford to rely on not having Trump or similar once again in power.
The Americans are considering to ban TikTok, do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
I like the EU approach better, even if it's not ideal its better than complete ban. Honestly, I'm terrified from banning becoming the norm because this will mean completely fragmented internet and this will mean the end of global society because the countries will be able to shape their society the way it suits them for internal politics.
Whatever TikTok is to the USA, Meta and the rest is the same for EU. TikTok has known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the American social media and tech in general has proven links to US intelligence and mass surveillance programs. You may say that CCP is adversary and US-EU are ally but then again the US has proven to be able to elect anti European government, so EU can't afford to rely on not having Trump or similar once again in power.
The Americans are considering to ban TikTok, do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
I like the EU approach better, even if it's not ideal its better than complete ban. Honestly, I'm terrified from banning becoming the norm because this will mean completely fragmented internet and this will mean the end of global society because the countries will be able to shape their society the way it suits them for internal politics.
The big and critical difference between TikTok connections to CCP and Meta connections to three letter agencies is that US and EU are military allies while US and China are strategic adversaries with chance of real hot war in the next 5 years.
Military umbrella that US provides to EU that includes military bases, transfer of military technology and freedom of navigation for middle east oil forces all parties to play much nicer. Fines to tech companies are fine (and often are supported by US regulators) but drastic steps like even seriously proposing banning big US tech companies are obviously over the line and are unacceptable.
Even beyond alliance, EU can start trade war but do not be surprised if then BMW and Mercedes cars surprising develop safety issues that requires full recall and compensation to all car buyers for harm.
Military umbrella that US provides to EU that includes military bases, transfer of military technology and freedom of navigation for middle east oil forces all parties to play much nicer. Fines to tech companies are fine (and often are supported by US regulators) but drastic steps like even seriously proposing banning big US tech companies are obviously over the line and are unacceptable.
Even beyond alliance, EU can start trade war but do not be surprised if then BMW and Mercedes cars surprising develop safety issues that requires full recall and compensation to all car buyers for harm.
The argument is that the EU cannot and should not even attempt to prevent unaccountable spying on its citizens by foreign states, or it will have its legs broken?
I'm assuming "having its legs" broken refers to having german car companies treated by the US like silicon valley tech companies are treated by the EU?
Are the German car companies spying in the United States?
(OK, that's snarky, but the car companies did actually have to pay out .. because they defrauded US consumers! Not all "crime" committed by companies is made up to sell trade restrictions!)
(OK, that's snarky, but the car companies did actually have to pay out .. because they defrauded US consumers! Not all "crime" committed by companies is made up to sell trade restrictions!)
So... like they already do? EU car and airplane manufacturers already produce their US models in the US due to tariffs rendering importing EU models uncompetitive.
Is that much different from the current foreign car import quotas and financial aids to categories dominated by US makers ?
No, that's the approach in South America. In Europe it would be a bit more subtle.
> Even beyond alliance, EU can start trade war
That's how European leaders saw IRA. They didn't retaliate because of the current context, but I find it surprising that US technologists are so oblivious to this kind of context, while resenting so acutely when US companies are asked to respect EU law.
That's how European leaders saw IRA. They didn't retaliate because of the current context, but I find it surprising that US technologists are so oblivious to this kind of context, while resenting so acutely when US companies are asked to respect EU law.
> Military umbrella that US provides to EU that includes […]
…and also includes spying on EU citizens on EU (and the Five Eyes) leaders' behalf (aka "sharing intelligence"). Don't forget that data transfer to the US also provides European leaders a way to circumvent their own privacy regulations, which is unacceptable.
…and also includes spying on EU citizens on EU (and the Five Eyes) leaders' behalf (aka "sharing intelligence"). Don't forget that data transfer to the US also provides European leaders a way to circumvent their own privacy regulations, which is unacceptable.
Facebook being banned in the EU has no justifiable bearing on NATO obligations. NATO is not a trade agreement.
The trade wars have already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist and subsidising its own industry to the detriment of its allies' industry. I wouldn't put it past a future government to take more drastic action, whether or not the EU takes a hard stance on US tech.
The US is still a vital ally of Europe and I'm optimistic that this relationship will continue. But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests have demonstrated that this relationship is no longer rock-solid. Even the Democrats are shakier than they used to be, and orienting for a more self-reliant US.
The US is preparing itself for the end of the post-Cold War liberal global order. The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. Drastic action against US tech is absolutely still premature, but we should be prepared for European interests to no longer necessarily be the same as American interests.
The US is still a vital ally of Europe and I'm optimistic that this relationship will continue. But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests have demonstrated that this relationship is no longer rock-solid. Even the Democrats are shakier than they used to be, and orienting for a more self-reliant US.
The US is preparing itself for the end of the post-Cold War liberal global order. The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. Drastic action against US tech is absolutely still premature, but we should be prepared for European interests to no longer necessarily be the same as American interests.
>>But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests
hmmm
>>> already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist
you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican.
I have no love loss for the republicans, but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans (or worse the Trump bogey man) is moronic and ignorant.
>The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not.
This shift has to take place with Europe advancing more of it national defense itself, America simply can not afford to be the world police anymore. The American People are demanding ever increasing social programs, EU Style Social programs, which the EU has been able to have due to the protection umbrella the US as provided at great cost since WWII, to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP defense spending, when they should be closer to 10-15%, but most are at 1-2% (or less)
@32 Trillion Dollars in debt, the US Bank is collapsing, and closed...
hmmm
>>> already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist
you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican.
I have no love loss for the republicans, but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans (or worse the Trump bogey man) is moronic and ignorant.
>The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not.
This shift has to take place with Europe advancing more of it national defense itself, America simply can not afford to be the world police anymore. The American People are demanding ever increasing social programs, EU Style Social programs, which the EU has been able to have due to the protection umbrella the US as provided at great cost since WWII, to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP defense spending, when they should be closer to 10-15%, but most are at 1-2% (or less)
@32 Trillion Dollars in debt, the US Bank is collapsing, and closed...
>"but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans"
Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
"2 buttocks of the same butt."
How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same???
Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back.
So what are you suggesting?
How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same???
Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back.
So what are you suggesting?
The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. The only option to get something done in the US is to shack up with one of the political parties and hope you can get enough altruistic people elected to dismantle the broken two party system. "Both sides the same" wants to preempt you from thinking there is a "less bad" side to choose, so that you don't choose a side, so that nothing ever happens.
Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news.
Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news.
Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
"The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. "
I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...
I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...
Your link is completely different argument to the one being made here about "non-voters"
Non-voters are people disgruntled with the current 2 party system, the largest voting block in that group are libertarian leaning people who do not break democrat.
Your link it talking about various voting laws, which largely impact densely populated cities, things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat.
Very very different things / topics
Non-voters are people disgruntled with the current 2 party system, the largest voting block in that group are libertarian leaning people who do not break democrat.
Your link it talking about various voting laws, which largely impact densely populated cities, things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat.
Very very different things / topics
"things like ballot harvesting, out-of-precinct ballot disqualification, and other such rules that have an outside impact on voters in urban cities which are largely democrat."
What about local elections, most elections are isolated to a particular area? The reason the Republican lawyer made that statement was to show standing. Meaning , why would the Republican party be effected by the various voter restriction laws. They said because it benefits them if voting rights are restricted.
If you are saying that the laws in question reduce the ability of democrats to vote vs republican (as in reduces the numbers more in cities vs rural?) What's the difference? I'm connecting turnout to their success.
Here's a more clear analysis though it is an opinion piece showing that young voter turnout is important for the democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/young-voters-democra...
The reason I used the Republican party's lawyer is because he was under oath and they wouldn't fight this case if it didn't benefit them
What about local elections, most elections are isolated to a particular area? The reason the Republican lawyer made that statement was to show standing. Meaning , why would the Republican party be effected by the various voter restriction laws. They said because it benefits them if voting rights are restricted.
If you are saying that the laws in question reduce the ability of democrats to vote vs republican (as in reduces the numbers more in cities vs rural?) What's the difference? I'm connecting turnout to their success.
Here's a more clear analysis though it is an opinion piece showing that young voter turnout is important for the democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/politics/young-voters-democra...
The reason I used the Republican party's lawyer is because he was under oath and they wouldn't fight this case if it didn't benefit them
> Non-voters are people disgruntled with the current 2 party system, the largest voting block in that group
There are no “voting blocks” in the group of non-voters.
There are no “voting blocks” in the group of non-voters.
Lol. Poor terminology. I should have said "largest group of eligible/ potential voters"
But still clear what I was getting at
But still clear what I was getting at
> Then you ask people to do something productive, what?
Use direct democracy at the state level, where state constitutions provide for this, to replace single-member FPTP systems with multimember proportional systems, creating multiparty democracy, and then advance it state by state until it becomes a national norm.
Use direct democracy at the state level, where state constitutions provide for this, to replace single-member FPTP systems with multimember proportional systems, creating multiparty democracy, and then advance it state by state until it becomes a national norm.
>"productive, what? Revolution?"
Since when productive means Revolution? Productive in my book means forming new party with the proper platform and winning the election. Meanwhile protests against most egregious actions will do.
>"It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive."
That had never stopped the US from instigating and supporting numerous revolutions and coups.
Since when productive means Revolution? Productive in my book means forming new party with the proper platform and winning the election. Meanwhile protests against most egregious actions will do.
>"It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive."
That had never stopped the US from instigating and supporting numerous revolutions and coups.
As for your last comment first - that's something the US government has done in the past and I'm talking about what the population might do. Completely unrelated.
I mentioned revolution as an example. Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose. That's what happened in the past.
I mentioned revolution as an example. Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose. That's what happened in the past.
>"That's something the US government has done in the past"
Very recent past and they will do it again no doubts.
>"Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose."
Well it is you country and you are free to maintain status quo.
Very recent past and they will do it again no doubts.
>"Forming a third party will cause one of the main parties, probably the one whose voters are least fundamentalist, to lose."
Well it is you country and you are free to maintain status quo.
>>Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same???
None of those things are constitutionally in the power of the federal government, nor should they be. Those are state level issues.
None of those things are constitutionally in the power of the federal government, nor should they be. Those are state level issues.
Gay rights are freedom of expression
[deleted]
> you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican.
I addressed this - the Democrats are also orienting towards a more protectionist, isolated US. The European-American relationship is also deteriorating under the current administration. But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, it's factions of the Republican Party.
The reality of which party does what is frankly irrelevant though - the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, and this kicked off under the Trump administration. Europeans believe that a Republican administration is less supportive of a strong alliance, and this perception of flakiness is driving a push for European self-reliance.
> to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP
This is already happening. Several of the biggest freeloading countries have promised massive increases in spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most notably Germany. They haven't met their targets yet, but an era of European self-reliance in defence is coming, in spite of current struggles with inflation and supply issues. Things are moving slowly, but European governments largely no longer believe they are safe without playing an active role in their defence.
> when they should be closer to 10-15%
That'd be an insane spending on defence - for reference the US spends 3.5% and Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% and they're currently locked in a desperate struggle for survival.
I addressed this - the Democrats are also orienting towards a more protectionist, isolated US. The European-American relationship is also deteriorating under the current administration. But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, it's factions of the Republican Party.
The reality of which party does what is frankly irrelevant though - the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, and this kicked off under the Trump administration. Europeans believe that a Republican administration is less supportive of a strong alliance, and this perception of flakiness is driving a push for European self-reliance.
> to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP
This is already happening. Several of the biggest freeloading countries have promised massive increases in spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most notably Germany. They haven't met their targets yet, but an era of European self-reliance in defence is coming, in spite of current struggles with inflation and supply issues. Things are moving slowly, but European governments largely no longer believe they are safe without playing an active role in their defence.
> when they should be closer to 10-15%
That'd be an insane spending on defence - for reference the US spends 3.5% and Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% and they're currently locked in a desperate struggle for survival.
>>the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were,
It is not a perception, it is reality and people need to understand that. The US can not afford it any more.
>>But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia,
I dont know about "acquiescing to Russia" but some member of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money, and debt do not matter and the government can just spend spend spend, with no limit.
>>most notably Germany
I will believe it when they actually do it, they have been promising that for almost a decade now. They still have not promised 3%, only 2%, and they will IMO never get there.
I hope Poland emerges in EU leadership taking it from Germany
>> Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34%
Now lets talk about corruption...
>That'd be an insane spending on defence
Maybe, but the US has been spending between 3-6% for decades building up the military to what is today, while the EU has been spending sub1% for those same decades, just matching US Spending is not going to cut it IMO.
Current US Military spending is at a all time low since WWII in % of GDP numbers, largely because the growth in the US Economy, in real numbers we still spend an INSANE amount of money.
It is not a perception, it is reality and people need to understand that. The US can not afford it any more.
>>But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia,
I dont know about "acquiescing to Russia" but some member of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money, and debt do not matter and the government can just spend spend spend, with no limit.
>>most notably Germany
I will believe it when they actually do it, they have been promising that for almost a decade now. They still have not promised 3%, only 2%, and they will IMO never get there.
I hope Poland emerges in EU leadership taking it from Germany
>> Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34%
Now lets talk about corruption...
>That'd be an insane spending on defence
Maybe, but the US has been spending between 3-6% for decades building up the military to what is today, while the EU has been spending sub1% for those same decades, just matching US Spending is not going to cut it IMO.
Current US Military spending is at a all time low since WWII in % of GDP numbers, largely because the growth in the US Economy, in real numbers we still spend an INSANE amount of money.
Saying Republicans understand fiscal reality when Bush pissed away unimaginable amounts of wealth in the middle east is ludicrous. I'd like some of what you're smoking.
There's currently some noise about costs because the president isn't Republican and it's an easy way to score asinine political points. None of that is coming from any sort of principled belief system, though.
There's currently some noise about costs because the president isn't Republican and it's an easy way to score asinine political points. None of that is coming from any sort of principled belief system, though.
You might want to take a reading comp class...
I clearly said
>>*some* members of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money
See that second part, where "other members of the republican party" i.e the Bush "republicans"... the ones many refer to as "RINO's" in common political rhetoric today...
I clearly said
>>*some* members of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money
See that second part, where "other members of the republican party" i.e the Bush "republicans"... the ones many refer to as "RINO's" in common political rhetoric today...
:eye_roll: I can already tell this would be a silly conversation, with you just repeatedly shouting "RINO! RINO!"
Republicans objecting to helping Ukraine because of cost are either blithering morons, compromised by Russian propaganda, or both. Take your pick.
Republicans objecting to helping Ukraine because of cost are either blithering morons, compromised by Russian propaganda, or both. Take your pick.
So you believe in spending with no limits, no controls, and no accountability
Because that is what is happening today..
Because that is what is happening today..
Or they do not care about ethnic war on periphery of Europe that affects none of US vital interests? Making irrelevant war in far remote country existential good vs evil struggle is how US got into Vietnam. The fact that there were zero negative consequences for US after fall of South Vietnam tells you that it was bullshit from beginning.
The same with Afghanistan. I disagree with Biden on many points but getting out of that country was the best possible course. Same situation as with Vietnam - with Taliban in power in Afghanistan there are zero negative consequences for US. What's more Taliban is apparently better than US or former "Afghan" government in suppressing actual terrorist activities that can threaten US.
Not every war is WW2 and struggle for world domination.
The same with Afghanistan. I disagree with Biden on many points but getting out of that country was the best possible course. Same situation as with Vietnam - with Taliban in power in Afghanistan there are zero negative consequences for US. What's more Taliban is apparently better than US or former "Afghan" government in suppressing actual terrorist activities that can threaten US.
Not every war is WW2 and struggle for world domination.
Thanks for reminding me of the book “War is a racket”. American farm boys being brainwashed into Americana,and send off to die to prop up American Businesses.
From the Banana Wars for the American Standard Fruit company, to getting PTSD in Iraq to make Dick Cheney wealthier, to who knows where next to defend Meta.
Nothing has changed in America. The military umbrella is watered with blood of lower and middle class boys and girls, but only to project Tycoons and Billionaires.
They could repel NATO, but if Europe slides with China then things will look very shitty for the Western Hemisphere.
From the Banana Wars for the American Standard Fruit company, to getting PTSD in Iraq to make Dick Cheney wealthier, to who knows where next to defend Meta.
Nothing has changed in America. The military umbrella is watered with blood of lower and middle class boys and girls, but only to project Tycoons and Billionaires.
They could repel NATO, but if Europe slides with China then things will look very shitty for the Western Hemisphere.
> do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
if only...
if only...
I don't know of good solutions. I'm deep in the "ban on regulate" camp, but I don't know what those bans or regulations should be. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Chinese and Russian agents than simple, capitalist free market forces.
Web sites which grab eyeballs grab dollars. There is no connection to truth, integrity, or honesty there. Right now, even with humans and Facebook-grade algorithms, that's leading to polarizing hatred. Things will get worse once LLM-style algorithms start generating content to optimize engagement.
We need individual free speech, but I'm much less sold on corporate free speech (or speech from algorithms optimized to a capitalist markets).
Web sites which grab eyeballs grab dollars. There is no connection to truth, integrity, or honesty there. Right now, even with humans and Facebook-grade algorithms, that's leading to polarizing hatred. Things will get worse once LLM-style algorithms start generating content to optimize engagement.
We need individual free speech, but I'm much less sold on corporate free speech (or speech from algorithms optimized to a capitalist markets).
> The Americans are considering to ban TikTok, do you want EU to adopt the same approach and ban TikTok along with Meta and the rest?
Yes, of course.
Yes, of course.
Same logic was used for the Nordstream by Germany.
i think the worse part of all this is that it won't be a real ban. you will immediately see the news apparatus telling stories about how teenagers get long prison sentences for downloading tiktok illegally. Real people will be punished for the theatrics of global politics.
Imagine the countries as a set of microservices, each exposing the data they want to. You can get all kinds of dystopian with this, and from technical perspective (although being a cool solution) somewhat twitchy eye inducing. Unless you make an OpenCountryAI standard that everyone confirms to - it'll get NASTY.
Now imagine micromonoliths with shared data. Much more soothing IMO.
I want microservices where appropriate, and I want my world global. Geographic boundires outlived themselves.
Now imagine micromonoliths with shared data. Much more soothing IMO.
I want microservices where appropriate, and I want my world global. Geographic boundires outlived themselves.
[deleted]
You ask consent from both users to store it wherever you'd like.
Has to be meaningfully informed consent, IIRC, and a set of T&C the length of a Shakespeare play isn't that, not even when it's the shortest Shakespeare.
And I think we should get rid of the pop-ups.
Let the service do what it does with least permissions. If something doesn't work there should be a settings where you opt-in. Don't block my view, hoping I will click the dark pattern as you want me to, believing I don't get anything if I say no.
That's not informed consent. That's consent under duress.
Let the service do what it does with least permissions. If something doesn't work there should be a settings where you opt-in. Don't block my view, hoping I will click the dark pattern as you want me to, believing I don't get anything if I say no.
That's not informed consent. That's consent under duress.
I agree.
There will be some cases where you need to explain what's going on to a customer before they should be allowed to do stuff — medical, financial, probably some others too — but I think the whole thing is getting abused so much it can't stand, and the exceptions probably need a specific license already anyway, and that license can just also say "and you not only get to have the popup, you are required to".
There will be some cases where you need to explain what's going on to a customer before they should be allowed to do stuff — medical, financial, probably some others too — but I think the whole thing is getting abused so much it can't stand, and the exceptions probably need a specific license already anyway, and that license can just also say "and you not only get to have the popup, you are required to".
Would you settle for Rodgers and Hammerstein provided that the piece is largely a series of musical numbers?
IMO anything more than one page of A4 in 12 point Times New Roman, is too much for a website where you connect with people and groups, chat with them, and share status updates and pictures.
Preferably half that.
(Advertisers are allowed longer agreements because they can be expected to hire a lawyer to explain stuff to them).
Preferably half that.
(Advertisers are allowed longer agreements because they can be expected to hire a lawyer to explain stuff to them).
is it that easy? in which case what’s all the hubbub about?
No. You also have to take adequate technical and organisational steps to protect data privacy.
In particular, the EU believes that by transferring personal data to the US, it could potentially be accessed by law enforcement/three-letter agencies without 'adequate' process.
More here: https://www.osano.com/articles/privacy-shield-invalidated#:~....
In short, the US does not have "a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU".
In particular, the EU believes that by transferring personal data to the US, it could potentially be accessed by law enforcement/three-letter agencies without 'adequate' process.
More here: https://www.osano.com/articles/privacy-shield-invalidated#:~....
In short, the US does not have "a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU".
you _are_ aware that you can pretty easily tell sexual orientation, political positions and other personal, private and non-obvious personality traits from an individual's interaction in FB (likes, shares, comments)?
and you are aware the NSA has far reaching access into the FB data pool?
this possibility to filter out "the gays" or "the trans" mixes very poorly with say, DeSantis or Trump concepts of a clean and neat and ordered country.
_that_ is the concern of the EU.
the perfectly legal processing of personal data in the US, which is meeting all US regulations. "Kleinman. ls that with an ''ei'' or an ''ie''?"
we may agree to disagree but I think this is orders of magnitude more concerning than microtargeting political campaigns (brexit & co)
and _that_ already is bad.
https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-onlin...
and you are aware the NSA has far reaching access into the FB data pool?
this possibility to filter out "the gays" or "the trans" mixes very poorly with say, DeSantis or Trump concepts of a clean and neat and ordered country.
_that_ is the concern of the EU.
the perfectly legal processing of personal data in the US, which is meeting all US regulations. "Kleinman. ls that with an ''ei'' or an ''ie''?"
we may agree to disagree but I think this is orders of magnitude more concerning than microtargeting political campaigns (brexit & co)
and _that_ already is bad.
https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-onlin...
The EU bureaucrats have a solution: If you are in the EU then all your friends outside the EU see a generic icon representation of you. If they click the icon a window with the text “Displaying personal data related to this individual would violate the GDPR” appears. Your name is also redacted.
The perfect user experience!
The perfect user experience!
These numbers should be written as "hours of revenue".
Then people would notice how laughably small those fines are.
> Meta was fined 12 hours of revenue for violating your fundamental human rights for years of profit.
Then people would notice how laughably small those fines are.
> Meta was fined 12 hours of revenue for violating your fundamental human rights for years of profit.
While I don't disagree with you, if you are going to say something like you should really at least give the right number. Or at very least include a disclaimer that 12 hours is not the right number.
2022 Meta revenue was 116 billion USD [1]. So the fine was 1.1% of yearly or revenue, or pretty close to 4 days of revenue.
In terms of yearly net income, it is 5.6% or 20 days of income. Don't think this is a trivial fine.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-...
2022 Meta revenue was 116 billion USD [1]. So the fine was 1.1% of yearly or revenue, or pretty close to 4 days of revenue.
In terms of yearly net income, it is 5.6% or 20 days of income. Don't think this is a trivial fine.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-...
Also to add, this fine is concerned with the EU. I'm not sure why we care how much money Meta makes in other regions. EU accounts for about 25% of their revenue [1]. So in terms of yearly net income it then gets closer to about 15%. Again, the job of EU is to regulate businesses in the EU and not the rest of the world.
[1] https://businessquant.com/facebook-revenue-by-region
[1] https://businessquant.com/facebook-revenue-by-region
Sounds to me like a clever EU work-around to force Meta to pay taxes over its EU revenue :p
This "fine" just feels like "cost of doing business in the EU" to me...
This "fine" just feels like "cost of doing business in the EU" to me...
They broke a law that violates basic human rights. Privacy is important to EU citizens, and unlike the US they largely enjoy that right thanks to laws which are enforced.
Nothing to do with taxes.
Nothing to do with taxes.
A lot of EU countries are also in "big eyes" esque spying agreements. The occasional story of a privacy law being enforced doesn't change that
Facebook is not the government so even if what you say is true, it's really off-topic. Being protected from businesses violating your privacy is a good thing.
The reason why Facebook transferring data to the US is illegal in the EU is because its spy agencies and law enforcement can force them to turn over data.
It's not off topic at all.
It's not off topic at all.
Can EU governments force companies to turn over data? If not, then you are talking about what EU governments do secretly. That's a different topic.
[deleted]
And the United States can't? Facebook is part of PRISM, and they are incorporated in America. They are arguably in a more compromised state when operating domestically than abroad.
That's not the argument I would go with, but you could. I would argue that the EU has more oversight into its spy agencies and can reign them in if wrongdoing comes to light, whereas they have little to no control over those in the US.
It's not off topic. You said:
> unlike the US they largely enjoy that right thanks to laws which are enforced
This is categorically not true.
> unlike the US they largely enjoy that right thanks to laws which are enforced
This is categorically not true.
This isn't about protecting users from spying. This is about managing user data and privacy in accordance with the laws that privately-owned businesses must abide by. You can claim that it's a double-standard, but it's still wrongdoing and needed to be sorted out either way.
Funnily enough, country that is biggest on that recently left EU...
But not because the EU didn't like their spying.
So how do you have “privacy” when the entire purpose of social media is to share your likes, dislikes, social graph, etc. worldwide?
The data that Facebook collects about people goes far beyond what is explicitly shared and visible in their profile. E.g. which sites they visit (and when) with Facebook widgets on them, on-site browsing habits, private conversations, their phone contacts, location data, etc.
I imagine that a number of features are built on top of these. I remember that you could easily see what friends where nearby you when you were traveling (I ran into a friend who was visiting Milan at the same time as me a few years back!) but the feature doesn't exist anymore. I'm wondering if it's because of regulations that they had to cut down on these features.
Facebook posts can be made for only friends to see. Other social media has similar controls.
Facebook also has private messaging.
Facebook also has private messaging.
And when those private messages get sent to someone in the US or those friends are in the US, what do you think is going to happen with the data?
You're moving the goal posts. Your claim was that all posts are globally public. That's wrong.
But to play along, what happens to the data depends on where it is stored. If the data center is in the US then the government can get a court order to seize that data. Which is not the same as in some other countries, is it?
But to play along, what happens to the data depends on where it is stored. If the data center is in the US then the government can get a court order to seize that data. Which is not the same as in some other countries, is it?
well, what would happen is facebook getting 1.3B fine
So now the EU is saying that Facebook shouldn’t allow people in the EU to talk to people in the US?
That's not what the EU said. You can read the publicly available ruling. Or any of the hundreds of articles summarizing the ruling.
> Privacy is important to EU citizens
The people on the ground didn't do anything with this
The people on the ground didn't do anything with this
That's entirely untrue. Countries in the EU had strong privacy laws before the EU existed. And before the internet existed. Mostly around phone companies, but not only. Having lived in a few countries in the EU I can also anecdotely say that privacy laws are generally liked.
GDPR laws are so popular that 17 countries outside the EU already have similar laws.
GDPR laws are so popular that 17 countries outside the EU already have similar laws.
Nah, GDPR is great.
For example now random security camera operator can't just take some scenes and post it on youtube, as that would violate GDPR in several ways and few companies paid tens to hundreds of thousands in fines for that.
It also cut sooo much bullshit when it comes to PII management. Because there is actual teeth behind it very little companies will try the old trick of "oh you wrote email to us ? Let's just send marketing stuff on that", as that would require separate consent.
For example now random security camera operator can't just take some scenes and post it on youtube, as that would violate GDPR in several ways and few companies paid tens to hundreds of thousands in fines for that.
It also cut sooo much bullshit when it comes to PII management. Because there is actual teeth behind it very little companies will try the old trick of "oh you wrote email to us ? Let's just send marketing stuff on that", as that would require separate consent.
They got 5 months to fix the issues. So after 5 months they can collect a bigger fine ... and then 5 months later again, with three increasing charges within 12 months it's more notable.
Ok, realistically it's unlikely to happen exactly that way, ...
Ok, realistically it's unlikely to happen exactly that way, ...
Fortunately, we can count on FB to move fast and break this hazard much faster than that.
Sometimes I wonder why there are so many people advocating three strike and out laws, but never against corporations. Would be interesting if the third fine would be so large that shareholders are wiped out and debt holders are left with scraps.
The GDPR allows for fines based on global revenue to prevent companies playing games with where there income is "technically" generated.
Bit off topic, but how on earth did Meta gross 116 billion USD ? lol
Of course we all find tech valuable, but that is absolutely stupid money for what I get out of their services, which is almost nothing hence I've not opened FB for weeks and I open Instagram for 2-3 minutes every day and turn it off, lately maybe every other day.
Even with more engaged users it's hard to believe it's worth that much money. Is the advertising really this effective ? Insane.
Of course we all find tech valuable, but that is absolutely stupid money for what I get out of their services, which is almost nothing hence I've not opened FB for weeks and I open Instagram for 2-3 minutes every day and turn it off, lately maybe every other day.
Even with more engaged users it's hard to believe it's worth that much money. Is the advertising really this effective ? Insane.
> that is absolutely stupid money for what I get out of their services, which is almost nothing
That's why it's a free product! Revenue is from the value they deliver to advertisers. Meta's average revenue per user is significantly higher than other ad platforms (except Google).
For someone selling to a particular group of people, getting ads to that specific group, and ONLY that group, is really valuable.
That's why it's a free product! Revenue is from the value they deliver to advertisers. Meta's average revenue per user is significantly higher than other ad platforms (except Google).
For someone selling to a particular group of people, getting ads to that specific group, and ONLY that group, is really valuable.
I would guess that a chunk of income comes from selling datasets to interested parties, especially politically affiliated ones e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
Your guess is wildly mistaken. They did not intend to sell data to CA; and the CA events happened in 2014-2015 and the program CA abused was subsequently shut down.
To my mind that could be explained as CA exploiting Facebook users' data and Facebook shut down that program so that it could instead explicitly sell similar datasets.
Well, you're wildly mistaken again. The dataset is the golden goose -- they have no interest or incentive to sell it.
Selling data erodes Facebook's ability to make money selling ads (because then other people will be able to target users just as well). It's never been something they did intentionally.
Meta only lost income and credibility from that scandal, unless you believe the data breach was conspiratorial.
Seems likely to me. I can't recall Facebook acting in good faith at any point in time. If there's a bunch of money to be made assisting well-funded politicians, then I'd fully expect Facebook to be wanting a piece of that pie when their business model is generally to act against the users of the site by selling their data to manipulators.
That's nice and terrifying then.
Wasn’t the fine for breaches since July 2020? So more like 2 days revenue and like 3%profit.
Actually meta had bigger year last year so a bit less than that.
Cost of business ?
Actually meta had bigger year last year so a bit less than that.
Cost of business ?
The investigation lasted 10 years.
https://noyb.eu/en/edpb-decision-facebooks-eu-us-data-transf...
So, the fine is ridiculously low. 130 million per year?
https://noyb.eu/en/edpb-decision-facebooks-eu-us-data-transf...
So, the fine is ridiculously low. 130 million per year?
Okay am I insane or does “20 days of income” for a company that generates income 24/7 seem like the definition of a “trivial fine”?
Given that you are on HN, you are likely salaried employee. This means you are also generating income 24/7. If you were fined for 20 days of your income, would you still argue that this is "the definition of a trivial fine" for you? I certainly wouldn't.
I mean given the context we’re talking about? That’s absolutely trivial. A 20-operating-days fine wouldn’t touch my day-to-day life, I wouldn’t have to alter my behavior going forward at all, there would be almost 0 repercussions.
Would I enjoy it? Certainly not.
Would I change my behavior if it was generating billions in revenue? Certainly not.
How is this supposed to dissuade FB at all?
Would I enjoy it? Certainly not.
Would I change my behavior if it was generating billions in revenue? Certainly not.
How is this supposed to dissuade FB at all?
It doesn't seem like the definition of "trivial fine," no.
Nietzsche wrote about this stuff, doubt there is any magnitude of fine that would be acceptable to the baying masses.
1.1% seems like slap on the wrist or cost of doing shady business. 20% would be more appropriate, then again this seems like political discussion between US and EU.
Reminder that this is revenue, not profit AND it is a fine from the EU so really only EU revenue should be counted when discussing how hard this hits Meta.
This implies that Meta doesn't make money outside of EU by exfiltrating EU users' data.
If Meta made zero money in EU whilst still offering a service to EU users, and still exfiltrating their data, should the fine be zero?
If Meta made zero money in EU whilst still offering a service to EU users, and still exfiltrating their data, should the fine be zero?
Even if the calculations for how to attribute income from different places would be difficult to decide upon precisely, and doubly so if the calculations are used to determine a penalty fine thanks to the possibility of being gamed, it can probably be guessed at without too much error in cases where Goodhart's Law doesn't bite.
How does anyone make money with EU data outside the EU? Seems like the value of that data is trivial anywhere else.
> a fine from the EU so really only EU revenue should be counted
You can't really fully seperaten EU revenue. I as a European write very intelligent and relevant posts on Facebook, thus people from other regions go there to read them. (well, I don't post anything on Facebook these days, but the point stands)
You can't really fully seperaten EU revenue. I as a European write very intelligent and relevant posts on Facebook, thus people from other regions go there to read them. (well, I don't post anything on Facebook these days, but the point stands)
Meta revenue is from showing an ad. "Is the ad shown in the EU?" seems like a pretty clear line. IFRS rules already require tracking the action that recognizes revenue so seems hard to play games with it.
It should hit the global revenue.
Otherwise they could play even more regionally with the rules, and fines are just a cost of doing the business.
Yes the fine should be based on global revenue, but when discussing if this fine actually hurts Meta, you should try to estimate the EU revenue, because it is about if it Meta cares about the fine. If it is a significant part of EU revenue then Meta should want to comply or leave the EU. If it is not then Meta doesn't care.
The fines can be up to 4% of global yearly turnover. I think they don't go for the full amount immediately, because you always want to have room to increase the penalty if the don't comply after this fine.
Agree.
A few years ago I was on around AUD90,000 and driving my wife's car which to me she had failed to register.
I got a AUD990 fine.
So I equate this fine to Meta getting busted for driving an unregistered car.
Not even close to a drink driving charge.
A few years ago I was on around AUD90,000 and driving my wife's car which to me she had failed to register.
I got a AUD990 fine.
So I equate this fine to Meta getting busted for driving an unregistered car.
Not even close to a drink driving charge.
20 days of income for this seems extremely low. Were it a person, they would have been jailed and indebted for life.
Not really. The EU isn't trying to kill Meta, it's trying to get it to follow GDPR where it applies. For most people, fining them an equivalent of their monthly salary, is a blow painful enough the person won't forget it soon, and will try to avoid getting fined again.
No, they wouldn't. An appropriate fine would have been given to a sole proprietor.
Yeah agreed. They will simply continue to violate the GDPR. If the last years global revenue was 116 Billion USD, the fine should be at least 200 Billion. Otherwise companies just will see the fine as cost of doing business.
Whether something is a 'cost of doing business' is based on whether the cost is expected or unexpected, not its magnitude.
I am getting tired of always reading this same old tune. It's damned if you, damned if you don't.
- EU fines a company a small percentage of its annual revenue. "Laughably small", "cost of doing business", EU has no fangs, blablabla.
- EU fines a company a large percentage of its annual revenue. Damn EU bureaucrats, trying to make money on the back of hardworking US multinationals, zero innovation over there so they steal from America, blablabla.
What do you want? For the EU to impose such large fines that they put every tech company out of business? No one wins at that game.
- EU fines a company a small percentage of its annual revenue. "Laughably small", "cost of doing business", EU has no fangs, blablabla.
- EU fines a company a large percentage of its annual revenue. Damn EU bureaucrats, trying to make money on the back of hardworking US multinationals, zero innovation over there so they steal from America, blablabla.
What do you want? For the EU to impose such large fines that they put every tech company out of business? No one wins at that game.
HN isn't a monoculture. Different people have different opinions.
HN may be slightly better than other platforms, but it's still largely an echo chamber
I, too, voice my opinion each day on platforms where everyone disagrees with me.
It's even worse than that -- you'll get both opinions on the same fine. Can't please everybody.
"Fundamental human right" is a pretty high bar and it's lazy to just throw it out there without any evidence. The UDHR (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...) has it stated as "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy". Is signing up for an American company's service and being surprised they send information to the US really arbitrary?
Maybe it is (or maybe folks disagree with the UN on privacy) but people should actually make that case instead of treating it as self-evident.
Maybe it is (or maybe folks disagree with the UN on privacy) but people should actually make that case instead of treating it as self-evident.
There are two aspect to this, the message to the company and the message to the users:
Yes, the fines are small enough that they are normalized by the violating corporate as just as small additional cost of doing business. A dramatic negative externality gets trivialized. The signal to other corporates is: go ahead feasting on the corpse of user privacy, just do a proper cost-benefit analysis.
But, these fines are legal events, in jurisdictions that are relevant to large numbers of people.
The common argument "people don't care about privacy" is more truthfully "people assume that widely popular online businesses are legal and ok, since services that are not ok are generally not allowed to operate". In fact, when all sort of public institutions are actually on facebook (and other adtech platforms) and even encourage people to join and interact there, they actually endorse that implied legal status. This has been a fiasco that has cut to size any "proud" democracy out there.
News headlines of legal fines help puncture that implied institutional endorsement. The average user doesn't know that the fine is just 12 hours of revenue. They actually have no clue what sort of lucrative business is running behind their backs and against their interests. Using these legal events, provided they get some press, does help the argument of those pushing to use (where available) privacy-respecting alternatives.
Of course such is the ability of the public to get desensitized to any uncomfortable truths that eventually that effect will wear out too.
Yes, the fines are small enough that they are normalized by the violating corporate as just as small additional cost of doing business. A dramatic negative externality gets trivialized. The signal to other corporates is: go ahead feasting on the corpse of user privacy, just do a proper cost-benefit analysis.
But, these fines are legal events, in jurisdictions that are relevant to large numbers of people.
The common argument "people don't care about privacy" is more truthfully "people assume that widely popular online businesses are legal and ok, since services that are not ok are generally not allowed to operate". In fact, when all sort of public institutions are actually on facebook (and other adtech platforms) and even encourage people to join and interact there, they actually endorse that implied legal status. This has been a fiasco that has cut to size any "proud" democracy out there.
News headlines of legal fines help puncture that implied institutional endorsement. The average user doesn't know that the fine is just 12 hours of revenue. They actually have no clue what sort of lucrative business is running behind their backs and against their interests. Using these legal events, provided they get some press, does help the argument of those pushing to use (where available) privacy-respecting alternatives.
Of course such is the ability of the public to get desensitized to any uncomfortable truths that eventually that effect will wear out too.
> Yes, the fines are small enough that they are normalized by the violating corporate as just as small additional cost of doing business. A dramatic negative externality gets trivialized. The signal to other corporates is: go ahead feasting on the corpse of user privacy, just do a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Non-compliance just causes another fine. So they could be up to 8% of turnover (not income) a year
Non-compliance just causes another fine. So they could be up to 8% of turnover (not income) a year
Revenue tells you nothing in terms of how severe that fine is. As others pointed out, it should be in relation to net income.
Not sure net income would tell you that much either. Many companies deliberately keep net income low by reinvesting in further growth. Think of Amazon's model. At least revenue gives you a sense of the upper limit.
But revenue has even more issues. You’ll end up hurting low margin companies the most.
If my company transacted $1T in some boring business model that netted a few million to the company coffers and employee pay then fining me on the $1T would simply wipe the company out many times over
If my company transacted $1T in some boring business model that netted a few million to the company coffers and employee pay then fining me on the $1T would simply wipe the company out many times over
Agreed, fine on net income is meaningless it just mean it won't hurt. Should be at least 10% of revenue like antitrust tend to do, this would make anyone think twice.
So Amazon can just say "fuck the law" and get negative fines ?
It obviously doesn't work.
It obviously doesn't work.
I don’t think GP is suggesting that the fines should be calculated based on net income. Just that you should evaluate the _impact_ by comparing to net income.
So in Amazons case you absolutely see a fine greater than their net income, but still only 1% of their revenue, and obviously such a fine would have a greater impact on Amazon than the equivalent 1% fine applied to Facebook.
So in Amazons case you absolutely see a fine greater than their net income, but still only 1% of their revenue, and obviously such a fine would have a greater impact on Amazon than the equivalent 1% fine applied to Facebook.
Well, one could say that that is a problem about how Amazon is allowed to use some shady accounting tricks to declare low net income, and therefore that problem is the one that should be addressed directly.
So when you're having a bad year because you over-hired, or because some upstream service you depend on too much is abusing their power to squeeze you you should be entitled to break any law?
What if your company is set up with the usual tax tweaks where all net income is zeroed out by some licencing agreement about hand-wavy IP from a sibling company in the corporate family?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?
What if your company is set up with the usual tax tweaks where all net income is zeroed out by some licencing agreement about hand-wavy IP from a sibling company in the corporate family?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?
I think the GP meant that you should see the fine in relation to the net income, rather than that the fine should be computed in terms of the net income.
E.g. if a company has 100b revenue and a net income of 4b, then a 1.3b fine has a large impact. If a company has a net income of 50b, then 1.3b is peanuts.
(I don't necessarily agree, but just elaborating what they probably meant.)
I think the GP meant that you should see the fine in relation to the net income, rather than that the fine should be computed in terms of the net income.
E.g. if a company has 100b revenue and a net income of 4b, then a 1.3b fine has a large impact. If a company has a net income of 50b, then 1.3b is peanuts.
(I don't necessarily agree, but just elaborating what they probably meant.)
An interesting way to look at it, the impact of a given percentage of revenue will certainly differ a lot between some tight margin reseller and a business that is basically market printing once established. But I can't parse the wording of the last sentence in GP post as "should be seen", it's to "should be". If there is ambiguity I fail to see it.
Neither revenue or net income will really represent the value of a company. Company evaluation would be more fitting, especially if the company is publicly traded.
Its in relation to turnover, not revenue. Up to 4% and another 4% for noncompliance
[deleted]
It's amazing to me how many otherwise intelligent people on HN inevitably make this same comment, when in fact, this is a substantial fine even to a company the size of Meta. Much higher would be borderline extortion, and Meta would seriously start to consider whether doing business in the EU is worth it.
Sure, but let's also add a reminder that the point of the fine isn't to torture or kill the company - it's to incentivize it to comply with the law.
Whatever ills people may ascribe to Meta, EU DPAs aren't in the business of social activism, or taking their annoyance out on multinational corporations. The job is to get Meta to comply with GDPR. If that fine will do the trick, mission accomplished. If it won't, the next one will be bigger, and then fining will continue until compliance improves.
(There's a sub-story here about Irish DPC, but that's orthogonal to the size of GDPR fines issued.)
Whatever ills people may ascribe to Meta, EU DPAs aren't in the business of social activism, or taking their annoyance out on multinational corporations. The job is to get Meta to comply with GDPR. If that fine will do the trick, mission accomplished. If it won't, the next one will be bigger, and then fining will continue until compliance improves.
(There's a sub-story here about Irish DPC, but that's orthogonal to the size of GDPR fines issued.)
Revenue is not the same as profit.. this fine is coming out metas income
You realize how silly this would be right? If you got a parking ticket, how would you feel about being fined some % of your monthly paycheck instead of a flat $50?
Like it is more fair. Why should a poor person pay nearly a day's wages for a violation when other people don't have to have such a harsh punishment?
Does it seem ridiculous at the edges? Sure, but it also makes the fine an actual punishment for all rather than a rule that the better off can afford to ignore. This is true even in the case of driving laws. Sure, you might lose your license regardless of finances - but only one of them can fairly easily afford the reinstatement fees and the extra costs of not driving.
Does it seem ridiculous at the edges? Sure, but it also makes the fine an actual punishment for all rather than a rule that the better off can afford to ignore. This is true even in the case of driving laws. Sure, you might lose your license regardless of finances - but only one of them can fairly easily afford the reinstatement fees and the extra costs of not driving.
Not sure if you're aware, but some fines in some jurisdictions actually work this way [1].
[1]: https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/04/finlands-progressive-pun....
[1]: https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/04/finlands-progressive-pun....
Another way to seek it is: $2 per EU citizen.
Is this comment GPT generated (following the description in meghan_rain's bio)?
You can't just attach the "human rights" magical pixie dust to anything to make it more serious. Oh wait you said fundamental human rights.
Privacy is a human right in the EU.
Having the datacenter that stores your data in another region does not affect your privacy in any way.
That's wrong. A data center in the US can be forced to hand the data over to the government. And that's not the only protection you lose.
It's very naive to think moving the datacenter to the EU makes it impossible for American agencies to data off it.
I never made any such claim that it would be impossible. Your initial claim is still wrong.
Moving the datacenter to the EU makes it a crime; we can at least impose diplomatic sanctions as and when we catch foreign spies doing crimes in the EU. If the datacenter is in the US then there's no recourse.
That's exactly why the privacy shield was invalidated by the CJEU.
The EU member states are responsible for protecting various rights of their citizens and they can't do that if the private data is placed in a uncooperating jurisdiction.
Clearly EU judges disagree with you.
It does if US government can take that data. Which they do.
[deleted]
They should be written as a % of profit from the area generating the fine
Given the creativity in accounting possible for multinationals and the difficulty in capturing value added to other areas from activities in an area that's a number with very little actual value.
The accounting is not what matters. What matters is using your brain to to figure out if a fine is actually meaningful.
Comparing to revenue is a stupid way to think about things. Profit is the incentive to conduct business. Not revenue. And not global profit, but in this case Ireland/EU profits only, because that is the location fining them.
People are so eager. Every. Single. Time. To say that a fine does not matter even if it clearly outpaces multiple years of profits for the area given.
Comparing to revenue is a stupid way to think about things. Profit is the incentive to conduct business. Not revenue. And not global profit, but in this case Ireland/EU profits only, because that is the location fining them.
People are so eager. Every. Single. Time. To say that a fine does not matter even if it clearly outpaces multiple years of profits for the area given.
> Comparing to revenue is a stupid way to think about things. Profit is the incentive to conduct business
Because it is and it isn't. Companies can make people filthy rich while not making a single dollar of profit thanks to the stock market where the price does grow, broadly, in terms of revenue.
Because it is and it isn't. Companies can make people filthy rich while not making a single dollar of profit thanks to the stock market where the price does grow, broadly, in terms of revenue.
You’re right in that it ought to be compared to the scale of profits, not a percentage, as many run on a loss during growth. But profit is still what matters. Including the promise of future profits.
Talking of the future doesn’t help much because both numbers will change. And punishing a company based on its future state is… not possible
Talking of the future doesn’t help much because both numbers will change. And punishing a company based on its future state is… not possible
The max fine is 4% of a firm's annual revenue from the preceding year so this is around ~1% of revenue
Curious how Nick Clegg has changed his tune on data collection since he went to work for Facebook. When he was leader of the Liberal Democrats and UK Deputy PM, he was strongly in favour of a data "Bill of Rights" that would limit and control data collection and sharing. I wonder what changed his mind?
The fact that the number two executive [0] at Facebook/Meta is a former legislator and politician who's responsible for lobbying governments shows just how much of an existential threat Facebook face.
Facebook/Meta are at the "cigarette company fighting for its right to operate" stage of its existence. They know they prey on people, and are ultimately "responsible" for a coming mental health crisis, disinformation, and potentially worse in some countries.
My bet is, just as with cigarette and oil companies, we will discover in 30 years time that Facebook had unpublished research into just how bad for the world some of their activities are.
0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60410636
> The move puts the former Lib Dem leader on a par with Mr Zuckerberg himself
> Mr Zuckerberg said Meta needed "a senior leader at the level of myself... who can lead and represent us for all of our policy issues globally".
Facebook/Meta are at the "cigarette company fighting for its right to operate" stage of its existence. They know they prey on people, and are ultimately "responsible" for a coming mental health crisis, disinformation, and potentially worse in some countries.
My bet is, just as with cigarette and oil companies, we will discover in 30 years time that Facebook had unpublished research into just how bad for the world some of their activities are.
0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60410636
> The move puts the former Lib Dem leader on a par with Mr Zuckerberg himself
> Mr Zuckerberg said Meta needed "a senior leader at the level of myself... who can lead and represent us for all of our policy issues globally".
> My bet is, just as with cigarette and oil companies, we will discover in 30 years time that Facebook had unpublished research into just how bad for the world some of their activities are.
Ahem...
Ahem...
Facebook researchers have found that 1 in 8 of its users report engaging in compulsive use of social media that impacts their sleep, work, parenting or relationships, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Tip of the iceberg.
FB internal researches have already found that Instagram is having negative impacts on the mental health of teenagers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/09/14/faceboo...
Not just any politician/legislator: He was deputy PM of the UK for 5 years.
IMO it's much worse than cigarettes, in that the ills that Facebook delivers upon us is very nuanced and isn't a concrete object like a cigarette is. It's only when you start pulling all the pieces of FB together (commenting, sharing, liking, friend graphs, etc.) that it starts becoming a bad thing.
Maybe data privacy turns out to be the "lower receiver" of social media but I doubt it.
Maybe data privacy turns out to be the "lower receiver" of social media but I doubt it.
Clegg's credibility in the UK is pretty poor due to some well publicised policy u-turns during his tenure in political power, most notable being tuition fees. He went from hero to zero very quickly over there, becoming almost an archetype of the slimey, untrustworthy politician.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/12/nick-clegg-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/12/nick-clegg-...
I can’t help but feel that Clegg get an unfair rep for that. The tuition fees thing was never going to happen, and was always put out by the Lib Dem’s to apply pressure to the two main parties (Conservative and Labour).
The Lib Dem’s then made the fatal mistake of actually making it into government, which they obviously never anticipated happening when they originally made the tuition fees promise.
Personally I think Clegg and Lib Dem’s did a fantastic job of reigning in the worst aspects of the Tory party, and the UK public raking them over coals for tuition fees has only benefited the Tories by removing the only thing that stopped them going off the rails completely. Which of course happened immediately after the Tories got rid of the Lib Dem’s and we got Brexit a year later
The Lib Dem’s then made the fatal mistake of actually making it into government, which they obviously never anticipated happening when they originally made the tuition fees promise.
Personally I think Clegg and Lib Dem’s did a fantastic job of reigning in the worst aspects of the Tory party, and the UK public raking them over coals for tuition fees has only benefited the Tories by removing the only thing that stopped them going off the rails completely. Which of course happened immediately after the Tories got rid of the Lib Dem’s and we got Brexit a year later
Nah, they made a commitment against tuition fees which they then reversed spectacularly. If they'd merely said, "since we're unable to agree on the changes to tuition fees they will be left at current levels in this parliament", I think people would have accepted that. It was the (three-line whip) voting to treble them that did them in.
It was the Cameron/Clegg government that normalised food banks in British society.
I'd like to know what the fantastic job they done was, because if it's solely holding off a Brexit situation for 5 years I could argue their relatively weak opposition whilst in coalition actively enabled a shift further to the right and their extremely weak position by 2015 allowed Cameron to be so assured of the centre-right vote that he could court the UKIP vote with a referendum he assumed would never pass.
He did get voting reform to the point of a referendum in the UK at least, which regardless of how badly it was executed is something (and I don't think I can blame him for that too much, it was doomed with the UK's media), it's just a shame that seems to be the entirety of what he managed.
I'd like to know what the fantastic job they done was, because if it's solely holding off a Brexit situation for 5 years I could argue their relatively weak opposition whilst in coalition actively enabled a shift further to the right and their extremely weak position by 2015 allowed Cameron to be so assured of the centre-right vote that he could court the UKIP vote with a referendum he assumed would never pass.
He did get voting reform to the point of a referendum in the UK at least, which regardless of how badly it was executed is something (and I don't think I can blame him for that too much, it was doomed with the UK's media), it's just a shame that seems to be the entirety of what he managed.
There may be some truth to that, and they did get the Conservatives to run a referendum on changing the electoral system from "First Past The Post" to "Alternative Vote". In some ways, getting that referendum should have been an incredible win worth sacrificing some short term policies. Unfortunately the campaign for the change was a disaster, and the misinformation and fear mongering about the change pushed the country to vote it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternativ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternativ...
Good points. I guess a counter is if seemingly 'cast-iron' pledges are put out there for the electorate (such as the scrapping of tuition fees) and people subsequently turn out in big numbers to vote for them (this was the year people were turned away due to large queues forming at the polling stations - obvs not all students voting for Lib Dems but you see my point) it's understandable that people will expect said pledges to be delivered on. The Lib Dem’s flagship political broadcast was titled “Say goodbye to broken promises” for example. The ire is understandable, whether one agrees or not.
> Unfortunately the campaign for the change was a disaster, and the misinformation and fear mongering about the change pushed the country to vote it down.
It was an absolutely extraordinary level of bullshit, especially the ads trading off changing the voting system cost vs NHS funding, which was really a prelude to how bad the Brexit debate would be.
It was an absolutely extraordinary level of bullshit, especially the ads trading off changing the voting system cost vs NHS funding, which was really a prelude to how bad the Brexit debate would be.
I dunno how much the campaign for reform can be blamed really; the bulk of the political and media classes were rabidly against it and it's very easy to make any kind of PR sound more confusing than it is.
It was the electorate that got rid of the LibDems, not the Tories. They went from 57 MPs to 8, largely because they broke promises like the one on tuition fees.
[deleted]
About £10m in Meta shares, apparently.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
-- Upton Sinclair
-- Upton Sinclair
This is par for the course. Critical voices get hired. It's a 'win win' in the sense that the critical voice gets to shut up and they get some money out of it. /s
Money is often a compelling argument.
I wish people would stop assuming that all politicians believe in the things they propose. Many are basically sociopaths who just agree with whatever gets them votes.
almost all of them are imo - if in office and that office manages 1M or more people. Those aren't usually aren't elected sadly because they aren't willing to sell their souls.
There are good odds that a sociopath will start to show up...and who wants to tell others how to live their lives....sociopaths and antisocial people....great choice of leaders but time and again...they lie and cheat and steal and make sure they look good for the pictures....so you elect them to give themselves raise, increase homelessness, increase poverty and spread policies that kill.....and enslave the future.
There are good odds that a sociopath will start to show up...and who wants to tell others how to live their lives....sociopaths and antisocial people....great choice of leaders but time and again...they lie and cheat and steal and make sure they look good for the pictures....so you elect them to give themselves raise, increase homelessness, increase poverty and spread policies that kill.....and enslave the future.
Honest question:
If a Facebook user in the US are friends with a user in the EU, how are they able to communicate and share profiles without transferring data from the EU to the US?
If a Facebook user in the US are friends with a user in the EU, how are they able to communicate and share profiles without transferring data from the EU to the US?
I guess if you shift that question around and stretch it, the answer is quite obvious:
If a Facebook user in the US is friends with a user in North Korea, how much data are the North Korean authorities allowed to get on that US user?
Aside from the fact that Facebook has no presence in NK (hence the stretch), the answer quite likely is "none".
If a Facebook user in the US is friends with a user in North Korea, how much data are the North Korean authorities allowed to get on that US user?
Aside from the fact that Facebook has no presence in NK (hence the stretch), the answer quite likely is "none".
A US user can see EU information. It's the storage and processing that's restricted. So, I would guess that the US user's facebook app would have to get its data from an EU server and show it to the US user, without storing it elsewhere.
I do not understand if or how the physical location of the servers matters.
As I remember, the EU-US data sharing agreement was killed (Schrems II) because of the US CLOUD Act, which infamously doesn't care where the data is stored - as long as the company is under US jurisdiction, it has to let the government snoop at will.
So, it seems to me that Facebook putting data on EU servers wouldn't matter? A three-letter agency could still go to their SV office and legally demand "give me an API key to query through your Irish datacentre and don't tell anyone". To protect EU citizens from that, the Facebook servers in the EU should treat non-EU FB servers exactly like third parties, using OAuth or similar restricted access protocols.
As I remember, the EU-US data sharing agreement was killed (Schrems II) because of the US CLOUD Act, which infamously doesn't care where the data is stored - as long as the company is under US jurisdiction, it has to let the government snoop at will.
So, it seems to me that Facebook putting data on EU servers wouldn't matter? A three-letter agency could still go to their SV office and legally demand "give me an API key to query through your Irish datacentre and don't tell anyone". To protect EU citizens from that, the Facebook servers in the EU should treat non-EU FB servers exactly like third parties, using OAuth or similar restricted access protocols.
Microsoft made it work for governments/universities. But not the rest of us.
https://www.privacycompany.eu/blogpost-en/new-dpia-for-the-d...
https://www.privacycompany.eu/blogpost-en/new-dpia-for-the-d...
Not sure to understand why the US Cloud Act is « infamous » in that respect. It would make little sense to let companies operating under US jurisdiction store their data in unsearchable data havens outside of US territory. The act has to be fully actionable.
I'm neutral on the wording, but imagine every country has an equivalent law like that...
I don't think Schrems II mentioned the CLOUD ACT.
No as it was pursued before it. There are not yet any enforcement or complaint i know targeting the CLOUD Act because everyone agree it would be unenforceable right now.
Try to have an EU tech scene without Microsoft, Azure, Google, Google Cloud or AWS. Or Salesforce. Datadog. Etc
It will take time until this one get enforced.
Try to have an EU tech scene without Microsoft, Azure, Google, Google Cloud or AWS. Or Salesforce. Datadog. Etc
It will take time until this one get enforced.
Actually, there are several enforcement actions which mention the CLOUD Act.
https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?search=%22cloud+act%22&title=Sp...
That just tells me that the EU is requiring all storage and processing to be in the EU, for every profile that is friends with somebody in the EU. Otherwise they can’t store the fact that we are friends.
To be more accurate, the EU is requiring all storage and processing to be in a country which doesn't violate EU privacy laws. That's reasonable and flexible.
So people in the EU just can’t have friends in the US or communicate with people in the US? How do I process a communication between a group of friends - some in the US and some in the EU - without the data being in the US?
A US server could store the id of the European friend, and then let the app collect the data. It's not unheard of.
And if they go to the website?
Then their browser can get that data from another server. It may be more complex, no, it is more complex than storing everything in one large database, but it can be done.
And that also gets rid of caching closer to the user and now you have multiple servers and no source of truth.
You really don’t see the added complexity of this and how this makes a worse user experience?
You really don’t see the added complexity of this and how this makes a worse user experience?
> You really don’t see the added complexity of this and how this makes a worse user experience?
Bluntly said: IDGAF, and neither should you. Who cares if it's harder for facebook/meta to program? Must we waive our rights because of incompetent or cheap engineering?
Bluntly said: IDGAF, and neither should you. Who cares if it's harder for facebook/meta to program? Must we waive our rights because of incompetent or cheap engineering?
It’s not harder for Facebook. It makes a worse user experience - just like the GDPR.
You didn’t waive your rights. You as an adult have the right to not use Facebook instead of waiting for the nanny state to “protect you”
You didn’t waive your rights. You as an adult have the right to not use Facebook instead of waiting for the nanny state to “protect you”
The owner of Facebook and as an adult have the right to not do business in countries where you can't reasonably obey the laws.
The GDPR does make UX worse. If you have to click away a cookie banner, it's because companies love to try to coax you into accepting as many cookies as they can get their grubby hands on. Storing a cookie for session administration is acceptable. You don't even have to announce it. It wouldn't make much sense, because it's less useful than your IP address (for the purposes of tracking). Only if the site wants to do more, it must get the user's permission.
> nanny state
Sadly, technology is nearly incomprehensible to most people, and the state must protect their rights. The rest is either an authoritarian or libertarian fantasy under the pretense of liberty.
> nanny state
Sadly, technology is nearly incomprehensible to most people, and the state must protect their rights. The rest is either an authoritarian or libertarian fantasy under the pretense of liberty.
Worse user experience depends on your priorities. Some people and companies think privacy is an essential UX factor. Apple, the most successful company in the world from time to time, agrees.
What do you think the Venn Diagram overlap of people who “care about their privacy” and use Facebook is?
Do you think the overwhelming amount of people say that they really glad that cookie banners infest the internet is a good thing?
If you haven’t heard, Apple is not exactly great at social media or anything that your data needs to be synced between devices.
Do you think the overwhelming amount of people say that they really glad that cookie banners infest the internet is a good thing?
If you haven’t heard, Apple is not exactly great at social media or anything that your data needs to be synced between devices.
Facebook operates in the EU and the majority of EU citizens prefer their privacy. Facebook must obey the laws of the land if they want to operate there.
Just as Facebook must obey Apple's rules if they want to be in the app store.
Similar privacy laws applied to some EU phone companies long before Facebook existed.
These laws are good and should stay. If better privacy has side effects, that's fine. Do business elsewhere if you don't like the legal preferences of the locals.
Just as Facebook must obey Apple's rules if they want to be in the app store.
Similar privacy laws applied to some EU phone companies long before Facebook existed.
These laws are good and should stay. If better privacy has side effects, that's fine. Do business elsewhere if you don't like the legal preferences of the locals.
As a start you'd need to read the details of GDPR laws. And probably hire a lawyer.
So now to create any web page compliant with the EU, I need to hire a lawyer to help me understand the 11 chapter 99 section GDPR?
In order to collect, store and process data about people in the EU, you have to do so in a manner compliant with the EU law on that.
Collecting that data on a web page is a choice.
A semi-hidden security benefit of GDPR is that it makes people think twice before collecting and keeping data - you can't leak data that isn't in your database in the first place.
Collecting that data on a web page is a choice.
A semi-hidden security benefit of GDPR is that it makes people think twice before collecting and keeping data - you can't leak data that isn't in your database in the first place.
If I am talking to a group of friends some in the US over Facebook messenger. Should that be stored on EU servers?
You first asked "if I create any web page".
Now "Talking over Facebook messenger" is a complete change of subject.
It is on Facebook, not you, to operate Facebook messenger in a legal way.
Now "Talking over Facebook messenger" is a complete change of subject.
It is on Facebook, not you, to operate Facebook messenger in a legal way.
How can Facebook both allow a user in the EU to send messages to a group of people in the US and not store data in the US?
> How can Facebook Run their business in a legal way?
There's a word for businesses that are systemically unable to comply with the law.
I don't know if Facebook is one of those, but it might be. Shutting down is always an option for that kind of company. Nothing of vale would be lost.
There's a word for businesses that are systemically unable to comply with the law.
I don't know if Facebook is one of those, but it might be. Shutting down is always an option for that kind of company. Nothing of vale would be lost.
If you think it's technically impossible the burden of proof is on you.
Facebook has not claimed it's not technically possible.
Facebook has not claimed it's not technically possible.
Sure. Or any country that complies with EU data protection and privacy laws.
Do you collect and store personal information for this website?
I bet you could find a dozen or more websites summarizing your legal obligations if you wanted to create one web page.
Since the context was Facebook, I was speaking about what businesses should do. And especially large businesses. As far as I've heard, the EU isn't chasing folks who run a small website.
I bet you could find a dozen or more websites summarizing your legal obligations if you wanted to create one web page.
Since the context was Facebook, I was speaking about what businesses should do. And especially large businesses. As far as I've heard, the EU isn't chasing folks who run a small website.
>As far as I've heard, the EU isn't chasing folks who run a small website.
But they could, which has already had a chilling effect on small businesses. Even though the intent (and current enforcement) is to punish large companies, GDPR is written in a way that puts a large compliance burden on many small companies and startups.
But they could, which has already had a chilling effect on small businesses. Even though the intent (and current enforcement) is to punish large companies, GDPR is written in a way that puts a large compliance burden on many small companies and startups.
I have zero problem saying your startup or small business doesn't deserve to collect my personal info if you can't protect it.
Doing your accounting, paying taxes, and following labor laws are also burdens on small businesses. Not every small business is profitable enough to manage those things and that's ok.
Doing your accounting, paying taxes, and following labor laws are also burdens on small businesses. Not every small business is profitable enough to manage those things and that's ok.
AFAIU It's not a blanket ban on all data transfers, so if a user clearly wants and authorizes it Facebook can still show their profile and posts to people in the US and transfer data as needed for that.
But the legal situation is such that a controller needs to be very precise about what they transfer and how they justify doing that. Which is difficult, which is why there has been so much noise about trying to find something that again lets companies just say "processing in the US is possible under the same standards as in the EU, so we can do all our processing wherever we think is convenient", which saves them a ton of work. But I'd expect until the US is actually willing to make legal changes any such thing will be rightfully rejected by the courts again.
But the legal situation is such that a controller needs to be very precise about what they transfer and how they justify doing that. Which is difficult, which is why there has been so much noise about trying to find something that again lets companies just say "processing in the US is possible under the same standards as in the EU, so we can do all our processing wherever we think is convenient", which saves them a ton of work. But I'd expect until the US is actually willing to make legal changes any such thing will be rightfully rejected by the courts again.
Privacy laws generally ignore the problematic case where a piece of data relates to both someone inside of the jurisdiction, and someone outside of it.
You can hypothetically have a case were two jurisdictions both demand that data be stored locally.
You can hypothetically have a case were two jurisdictions both demand that data be stored locally.
Dear EU, please add one (or more) zeros to these fines. If only a single tech giant gets fined out of business for repeatedly breaking the law the others will definitely notice.
“Fined out of business”?
Yes, why not? The EU can't revoke the corporate charter for entities that don't have the bulk of their presence in the EU but it can cause them so much grief that they will either abandon the EU or they will mend their ways. Apparently the fines imposed so far aren't nearly large enough.
Exactly. We should go a step further:
Let’s make the biggest social networks Meta, TikTok, etc incur fines in the tens of billions for every investigation of significant privacy violations (like Meta’s existing case) of its users and pay back their users in compensation over that until the company either changes or exits the market the regulators reside in. This is far better than a ban and the regulators and users get free cash out of it.
Given that we have the regular ‘all social networks do this’ excuses on collecting data, the standard for large social networks in the 1B+ daily active users collecting user data should have much larger fines in the billions.
Let’s make the biggest social networks Meta, TikTok, etc incur fines in the tens of billions for every investigation of significant privacy violations (like Meta’s existing case) of its users and pay back their users in compensation over that until the company either changes or exits the market the regulators reside in. This is far better than a ban and the regulators and users get free cash out of it.
Given that we have the regular ‘all social networks do this’ excuses on collecting data, the standard for large social networks in the 1B+ daily active users collecting user data should have much larger fines in the billions.
Regulators destroying markets isn't the slam dunk you might believe it is. Why not fine GSK out of existence any time someone dies from a mislabelled allergen? Even though that is far worse than data being processed in the wrong country (not even being mishandled, just the increasing chance of mishandling) it wouldn't be proportionate.
> Why not fine GSK out of existence any time someone dies from a mislabelled allergen?
Funny, this is essentially what happens with tobacco taxes. Cigarettes are prohibitively expensive and thus have caused that industry to falter in the US.
Funny, this is essentially what happens with tobacco taxes. Cigarettes are prohibitively expensive and thus have caused that industry to falter in the US.
That's definitely not the same. Taxes aren't fines. Taxes may be market-destroying, if there's enough political will to make it happen, as with cigarettes, but they aren't capricious.
> Taxes aren't fines.
Technically, you're correct they aren't, but how realistically are they are any different? In both cases the government profits from a corporation's behavior.
Technically, you're correct they aren't, but how realistically are they are any different? In both cases the government profits from a corporation's behavior.
Fines aren't capricious either.
I think they are to some extent, or these giant ones are. They look a lot more like "take advantage of local sentiment" or "make an example of this one" than taxes, which are applied uniformly.
And also because that action has consequences on the world stage. Deliberately harming one of your ally's largest businesses isn't something I expect will be tolerated indefinitely since it's a diet sanction.
You have the victim/perp relationship mixed up I think. Facebook does harm. They are the perp. The EU data subjects are the victims and the 'world stage' is exactly why this sort of transnational company should adapt to local legislation.
The idea that it 'wouldn't be tolerated' suggests - correct me if I read this wrong - that the country where the company originated would then do some kind of tit-for-tat with companies from the other country. But: where were those comments when VAG and other car manufacturers broke the law in the US? (and probably elsewhere too?). My position hasn't changed, they deserved their comeuppance as much as FB does right now.
The idea that it 'wouldn't be tolerated' suggests - correct me if I read this wrong - that the country where the company originated would then do some kind of tit-for-tat with companies from the other country. But: where were those comments when VAG and other car manufacturers broke the law in the US? (and probably elsewhere too?). My position hasn't changed, they deserved their comeuppance as much as FB does right now.
It's all about framing. If the US agrees that this is bad actors getting rightfully punished for violating local laws then it's all good. If the US looks at the regulation and decides that it's a very complicated ceremony to extract money from US tech companies then it becomes more complicated. And since FB isn't violating US law and the US passed the cloud act I think that this is relatively likely. This court case is effectively a proxy war over the cloud act because meta didn't actually do anything wrong, their actions became wrong in response to us law.
US law doesn't come into play, it's EU law we are talking about here.
'Meta didn't actual do anything wrong' -> they did.
'Meta didn't actual do anything wrong' -> they did.
Yes it does, the reason Meta's actions went from legal to illegal is because US law changed.
Facebook has worked the same way for more than a decade. First EU law changed and it was fine because the US and EU had a data sharing agreement, then US law changed. If you what Meta did wrong is not completely rearchitect Facebook in response to a US/EU squabble then your bar for right and wrong is really really low.
There's a lot of things you can point to that Meta does that are shady, but they thing they actually got fined for didn't have to do with any of them.
Facebook has worked the same way for more than a decade. First EU law changed and it was fine because the US and EU had a data sharing agreement, then US law changed. If you what Meta did wrong is not completely rearchitect Facebook in response to a US/EU squabble then your bar for right and wrong is really really low.
There's a lot of things you can point to that Meta does that are shady, but they thing they actually got fined for didn't have to do with any of them.
Yes, because obviously the government should play king maker with companies. What could possibly go wrong? Governments are definitely infallible and make the best decisions based on non biased information. I suggest they take an annual popular vote on which company to fine out of existence each year, that will surely get good results.
No, businesses should comply with the law. If all businesses comply with the law it's a level playing field so there is no 'king making'. There is the obligation of the government to take care of those that try to upend the board in order to win.
Or "business expenses rose so the business stopped being viable in this contract jurisdiction"
Facebook employs lots of people in Ireland, they don’t want them out of business.
Ok, so if a company employs enough people they get to break the law at their discretion?
Imo discretion remains with the public, but yes, corporations can arguably get away with more illegal things if they have more weight
Not saying it’s right
Can someone clarify what the legal point is here?
If Meta are relying on SCCs to safeguard against the transfer of cross-border data processes from EU to US, the same clauses which was recommended by the CJEU from the Schrems II case, what is the legal challenge?
Does anyone have any links to the actual decision so I can read the technical points of the judgment?
If Meta are relying on SCCs to safeguard against the transfer of cross-border data processes from EU to US, the same clauses which was recommended by the CJEU from the Schrems II case, what is the legal challenge?
Does anyone have any links to the actual decision so I can read the technical points of the judgment?
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/binding-...
Here is the official decision, it also summarises the dispute.
Here is the official decision, it also summarises the dispute.
This is the decision: https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/consistency-findings/r...
From the press release:
> The inquiry was initially commenced in August 2020, and was subsequently stayed by Order of the High Court of Ireland, pending the resolution of a series of legal proceedings, until 20 May 2021. Following a comprehensive investigation, the DPC prepared a draft decision dated 6 July 2022. Notably, it found that:
> 1. the data transfers in question were being carried out in breach of Article 46(1) GDPR; and
> 2. in these circumstances, the data transfers should be suspended.
From the press release:
> The inquiry was initially commenced in August 2020, and was subsequently stayed by Order of the High Court of Ireland, pending the resolution of a series of legal proceedings, until 20 May 2021. Following a comprehensive investigation, the DPC prepared a draft decision dated 6 July 2022. Notably, it found that:
> 1. the data transfers in question were being carried out in breach of Article 46(1) GDPR; and
> 2. in these circumstances, the data transfers should be suspended.
So, what I don't understand is:
Based on the EDPB Decision [1], it seems the most weight of the decision is from paragprah 107:
> As explained by the EDPB in its Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data (hereinafter ‘EDPB Recommendations on Supplementary Measures’) 243, when assessing third countries and identifying appropriate supplementary measures, controllers should assess if there is anything in the law and/or practices in force of the third country that may impinge on the effectiveness of the appropriate safeguards of the transfer tools that they are relying on 244. In this regard, the EDPB notes that, according to Meta IE’s assessment, ‘the level of protection required by EU law is provided for by relevant US law and practice’ and that Meta IE implemented supplementary measures in addition to the 2021 SCCS in order to ‘further ensure that an adequate level of protection continues to apply to User Data transferred from FIL to FB, Inc’ 245 . In other words, Meta IE has implemented supplementary measures on the basis of an assessment which concluded that there was no need for such measures, since, in Meta IE’s view, the relevant US law and practice were already providing a level of protection equivalent to the one provided under EU law
My follow on question, let's say they understood the risk, I fail to see any safeguards which could be equivalent to the EU law? FISA 702 + other intrusive surveillance laws basically make this impossible.
So it seems that because Meta:
> seems to identify its own test for determining suitability of supplemental measures by lowering the standard to include measures that can “address” or “mitigate” any “relevant remaining” inadequacies in the protections offered by US law and practice and the SCCs’ 249, and concludes in the Draft Decision that ‘Meta Ireland does not have in place any supplemental measures which would compensate for the inadequate protection provided by US law’
I'm just confused what would have been sufficient for Meta in this circumstance?
The decision continues in paragraph 121 to say:
> In this regard, the EDPB recalls that the IE SA carries out a detailed assessment of whether Meta IE implemented supplementary measures that could address the inadequate protection provided by US law 273. More specifically, the IE SA analyses the organisational, technical and legal measures implemented by Meta IE and concludes that these measures cannot, ‘whether viewed in isolation, or in tandem with the 2021 SCCs and the full suite of measures outlined in the ROS’, compensate for the deficiencies identified in US law and cannot provide essentially equivalent protection to that available under EU law 2
I am aware of zero technical and organsiational measures which could protect against 702 FISA DOWNSTREAM (PRISM), short of not transfering the data to US?
Thoughts?
[1]: https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/edpb_bindingdeci...
Based on the EDPB Decision [1], it seems the most weight of the decision is from paragprah 107:
> As explained by the EDPB in its Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data (hereinafter ‘EDPB Recommendations on Supplementary Measures’) 243, when assessing third countries and identifying appropriate supplementary measures, controllers should assess if there is anything in the law and/or practices in force of the third country that may impinge on the effectiveness of the appropriate safeguards of the transfer tools that they are relying on 244. In this regard, the EDPB notes that, according to Meta IE’s assessment, ‘the level of protection required by EU law is provided for by relevant US law and practice’ and that Meta IE implemented supplementary measures in addition to the 2021 SCCS in order to ‘further ensure that an adequate level of protection continues to apply to User Data transferred from FIL to FB, Inc’ 245 . In other words, Meta IE has implemented supplementary measures on the basis of an assessment which concluded that there was no need for such measures, since, in Meta IE’s view, the relevant US law and practice were already providing a level of protection equivalent to the one provided under EU law
My follow on question, let's say they understood the risk, I fail to see any safeguards which could be equivalent to the EU law? FISA 702 + other intrusive surveillance laws basically make this impossible.
So it seems that because Meta:
> seems to identify its own test for determining suitability of supplemental measures by lowering the standard to include measures that can “address” or “mitigate” any “relevant remaining” inadequacies in the protections offered by US law and practice and the SCCs’ 249, and concludes in the Draft Decision that ‘Meta Ireland does not have in place any supplemental measures which would compensate for the inadequate protection provided by US law’
I'm just confused what would have been sufficient for Meta in this circumstance?
The decision continues in paragraph 121 to say:
> In this regard, the EDPB recalls that the IE SA carries out a detailed assessment of whether Meta IE implemented supplementary measures that could address the inadequate protection provided by US law 273. More specifically, the IE SA analyses the organisational, technical and legal measures implemented by Meta IE and concludes that these measures cannot, ‘whether viewed in isolation, or in tandem with the 2021 SCCs and the full suite of measures outlined in the ROS’, compensate for the deficiencies identified in US law and cannot provide essentially equivalent protection to that available under EU law 2
I am aware of zero technical and organsiational measures which could protect against 702 FISA DOWNSTREAM (PRISM), short of not transfering the data to US?
Thoughts?
[1]: https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/edpb_bindingdeci...
You are right. The only solutions are to not host in the US and/or have a parent company in the US. And/Or to get the US to apply basic human rights.
There are no other real way.
What would have been sufficient is to process all data in EU jurisdiction and transfer HQ to equivalent country.
There are no other real way.
What would have been sufficient is to process all data in EU jurisdiction and transfer HQ to equivalent country.
But since it's a global network it means that they would have had to up and moved the whole operation into the EU which is pants on head stupid. The moment two countries have incompatible laws it all breaks down. This isn't something that should even concern Meta and should be a US/EU negotiation.
It has been a US/EU negotiation. Unfortunately the US is not willing to budge on its principle of “we get to look at whatever we want to without the need for a due process”.
I mean i could tell it otherwise which is that the US should maybe consider providing basic human rights to their citizens and residents.
If they do not, why would the rest of the world let them interact with them and endanger everyone?
If they do not, why would the rest of the world let them interact with them and endanger everyone?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by basic human rights?
Right to privacy and due process? At least for this specific problem. I recommend going to read the Schrems II opinion by the CJEU, it is quite readable.
After that we can extend to deeper Human Rights but let's start with the basics.
After that we can extend to deeper Human Rights but let's start with the basics.
Or don't build global networks. Build local networks and federate them.
And the moment a user from the UK messages a user in the US?
Ultimately the EU is going to have to come up with a detailed compliance framework. The wording of the GDPR is too high-level and we can't trust companies to self-regulate.
What? The wording is really not high level, it is highly detailed. The fact that we refuse to acknowledge it is not due to the language not being detailed enough
> [M]eta are relying on SCCs [...] which was recommended by the CJEU from the Schrems II case[.]
An unofficial summary[1] of Schrems II doesn’t put it quite like that: Schrems II invalidated Privacy Shield, did not invalidate SCCs in general, but said that the latter are only valid insofar as they can provide EU-mandated privacy protections given the legal regime of the destination country.
Arguably, because of the last point, a US company is incapable of entering a contract that provides such protections: they include judicial review of privacy violations, while US law says that noncitizens don’t have standing to sue over those for surveillance under the FISA mandate (expires this December but will probably be renewed).
[1] https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C-311/18_-_Schrems...
An unofficial summary[1] of Schrems II doesn’t put it quite like that: Schrems II invalidated Privacy Shield, did not invalidate SCCs in general, but said that the latter are only valid insofar as they can provide EU-mandated privacy protections given the legal regime of the destination country.
Arguably, because of the last point, a US company is incapable of entering a contract that provides such protections: they include judicial review of privacy violations, while US law says that noncitizens don’t have standing to sue over those for surveillance under the FISA mandate (expires this December but will probably be renewed).
[1] https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C-311/18_-_Schrems...
Notice from NOYB, on whose complaint this goes back to: https://noyb.eu/en/edpb-decision-facebooks-eu-us-data-transf...
And HN thread for that link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36029050
And HN thread for that link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36029050
I do not think there is any amount of money that could be fined that HN commentators would not call a slap on the wrist.
Let's say a train ticket costs $10. If you board without a ticket, the probability of getting caught and having to pay a fine is, let's say, 10%. Do you see why the amount of the fine must be greater than $100? Otherwise the optimal strategy is to never buy a train ticket, and just always pay the fine when you get caught.
That's a slap on the wrist: it's cheaper to pay the fine than to follow the law. The correct amount of money for a fine is a multiple of the amount of revenue gained from ignoring the law. I don't know what that is in this case, but I'm fairly certain it's at least an order of magnitude larger than $1.3B.
That's a slap on the wrist: it's cheaper to pay the fine than to follow the law. The correct amount of money for a fine is a multiple of the amount of revenue gained from ignoring the law. I don't know what that is in this case, but I'm fairly certain it's at least an order of magnitude larger than $1.3B.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling.
A fine of even 20% of revenue would basically kill any company, big or small.
And we are talking revenue, not profit.
A fine of even 20% of revenue would basically kill any company, big or small.
And we are talking revenue, not profit.
I'd want to see a fine of 20% of revenue if around 5% to 10% of its revenues came from illegal activities. If that's the case, maybe the company should be killed. The fine must be a multiple of the gains or there's no benefit to following the law.
> big or small
That's exactly the point. Flat fines (not saying $1.3B is a flat fine, in this case) only kill small companies and act as a small "break the law fee" for big companies.
> And we are talking revenue, not profit.
Right, you cannot fine based on profit, because profit is a gameable number (Hollywood Accounting).
I'm not actually saying $1.3B is the wrong number: it's possible that's 3x to 5x of the revenue they gained from brazenly and wantonly breaking the laws of the country in which they operated. I haven't done enough research to say. What I was responding to was this:
> I do not think there is any amount of money that could be fined that HN commentators would not call a slap on the wrist.
Most fines for most offenses against most companies are slaps on the wrist, because they are less than the gain. This is why.
> I can’t tell if you’re trolling
This is a bad-faith attempt to dismiss an argument without considering it.
> big or small
That's exactly the point. Flat fines (not saying $1.3B is a flat fine, in this case) only kill small companies and act as a small "break the law fee" for big companies.
> And we are talking revenue, not profit.
Right, you cannot fine based on profit, because profit is a gameable number (Hollywood Accounting).
I'm not actually saying $1.3B is the wrong number: it's possible that's 3x to 5x of the revenue they gained from brazenly and wantonly breaking the laws of the country in which they operated. I haven't done enough research to say. What I was responding to was this:
> I do not think there is any amount of money that could be fined that HN commentators would not call a slap on the wrist.
Most fines for most offenses against most companies are slaps on the wrist, because they are less than the gain. This is why.
> I can’t tell if you’re trolling
This is a bad-faith attempt to dismiss an argument without considering it.
If I break a law I go to jail.
If a company breaks the law, it gets to continue to break it by paying some money. And claim that doing wonderful technological development and innovating shit.
I mean, if I have the option to get a get-out-of-jail card for 20% of my income I'd probably take it.
If a company breaks the law, it gets to continue to break it by paying some money. And claim that doing wonderful technological development and innovating shit.
I mean, if I have the option to get a get-out-of-jail card for 20% of my income I'd probably take it.
20 days of profit is a ton and I doubt they made that much from doing it.
Even beyond that though, it needs to be enough to make them actually care.
A few % of revenue would make any company care, even a company the size of Meta.
Reading the comments on this thread makes me wonder how many commenters have been close to real company operations in the past.
Reading the comments on this thread makes me wonder how many commenters have been close to real company operations in the past.
I understand that data being sent to the US is perhaps out of Europe's control. But how much do they really know about the treatment of data that stays in European data centers? I'm just surprised that the enforcement is about where the data is stored and not about whether actual (or should I say: other) privacy violations (against European laws) have occurred.
Note that originally a data transfer to the US was not a problem at all. You signed a piece of paper that said "European data privacy protections apply in the US as well" and all was good. There was even Safe Harbour and later Privacy Shield to give a sort of blanket statement that this was true.
Except courts repeatedly mentioned that US law does not provide the necessary protections for non US citizens rendering all these statements invalid. The root of the issue are the FISA courts.
Except courts repeatedly mentioned that US law does not provide the necessary protections for non US citizens rendering all these statements invalid. The root of the issue are the FISA courts.
The core of the issue is the CLOUD Act, which was passed very recently -specifically to force US tech companies to comply with subpoenas on data stored in the EU. This is basically the Hague Invasion Act[0] for data privacy. It commandeers nominally private US tech companies into arms of US law enforcement for crimes committed in EU territory.
The non-US citizens thing is a related issue[1], but it's not what started this current row of GDPR export lawsuits. However, I don't see the EU courts letting this go until and unless the US and friends drop the whole "noncitizens don't have rights" shenaniganery.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
[1] Five Eyes - effectively the Anglosphere's spymasters - realized that if you say "only citizens are protected by privacy law", then nobody is protected by privacy law, because you can hire your allies to infringe upon your own citizens' privacy.
The non-US citizens thing is a related issue[1], but it's not what started this current row of GDPR export lawsuits. However, I don't see the EU courts letting this go until and unless the US and friends drop the whole "noncitizens don't have rights" shenaniganery.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
[1] Five Eyes - effectively the Anglosphere's spymasters - realized that if you say "only citizens are protected by privacy law", then nobody is protected by privacy law, because you can hire your allies to infringe upon your own citizens' privacy.
I think there's a rock and a hard place here because a US company being able to just move their incriminating documents over to a different datacenter to make them untouchable by US law enforcement is a loophole you could drive a yacht through.
> The root of the issue are the FISA courts.
TIL that ACLU filed[1] a motion in the FISC to have its pre-2015 precedent-setting decisions released (post-2015 the USAFREEDOM Act makes such release mandatory); FISC denied jurisdiction (aka “go tell Congress to fix their stuff”, which I suppose is OK?), FISCR as well (same), the Supreme Court refused to review that (?!..).
[1] https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/re-opinions-and-orders-court...
TIL that ACLU filed[1] a motion in the FISC to have its pre-2015 precedent-setting decisions released (post-2015 the USAFREEDOM Act makes such release mandatory); FISC denied jurisdiction (aka “go tell Congress to fix their stuff”, which I suppose is OK?), FISCR as well (same), the Supreme Court refused to review that (?!..).
[1] https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/re-opinions-and-orders-court...
The point is, the world is not united, and the U.S. can not be trusted with personal data.
The solution seems simple: Stop blaming companies for things done by people who work there. Companies should not be their own judge jury and executioner nor be punished as a whole. Go after those who implemented things and those who ordered the implementation. Punishments should be small enough to still be in proportion with the offense and large enough to encourage others not to repeat the offense.
If someone doubts the legality of a request they should be obligated to report it internally to a member of a formal organization like lawyers and doctors have. Lose their title if they do not act on a report along with fines and prison sentences. Long prison sentences if they are new.
We pay the giant salaries to people with great responsibilities. Why would we shield them from responsibility? They should earn even more and have even more responsibilities.
It sounds like a blunt weapon but people are asked to do things that could have terrible implications all the time. With each data breach [for example] there was a dev who could have said no. It should have just enough personal implications to at least report it internally. If legal wants to stick their neck out for it personally the dev and their management are off the hook.
A few years back companies here were forbidden to pay speeding tickets for their employees. It was funny how some got a bill in stead of a pay check.
If someone doubts the legality of a request they should be obligated to report it internally to a member of a formal organization like lawyers and doctors have. Lose their title if they do not act on a report along with fines and prison sentences. Long prison sentences if they are new.
We pay the giant salaries to people with great responsibilities. Why would we shield them from responsibility? They should earn even more and have even more responsibilities.
It sounds like a blunt weapon but people are asked to do things that could have terrible implications all the time. With each data breach [for example] there was a dev who could have said no. It should have just enough personal implications to at least report it internally. If legal wants to stick their neck out for it personally the dev and their management are off the hook.
A few years back companies here were forbidden to pay speeding tickets for their employees. It was funny how some got a bill in stead of a pay check.
Doesn't this mean any US company with data on EU users is technically in violation?
And?
Without a footprint in the EU, there is no legal action the EU can take against a foreign organization. Sure, the EU might ban your organization from operating legally in their markets, but again, there is no legal recourse for the EU. You might as well circumvent the ban too.
Without a footprint in the EU, there is no legal action the EU can take against a foreign organization. Sure, the EU might ban your organization from operating legally in their markets, but again, there is no legal recourse for the EU. You might as well circumvent the ban too.
What if one visits EU? Will you get in trouble at the airport?
I’m thinking for startups, maybe default to servers in EU. Until you get big enough where you can handle complex geographical distributed infrastructure.
I’m thinking for startups, maybe default to servers in EU. Until you get big enough where you can handle complex geographical distributed infrastructure.
I'd wager there are many tech companies with offices in the EU that have data on EU citizens.
They could be (and probably are), but remember, this case is about a EU company (Meta Platforms Ireland Limited) breaking EU law and subsequently being punished for that, with fines proportional to the revenue of the parent company (a US company).
Are you arguing that selective enforcement of the law is a good thing? Why just this one company? Google and many other large companies are also apparently in violation.
No. Were do you think I did that? I'm just saying this is not the case of a U.S company being fined for breaking EU law (which many seem to think) but a EU company breaking EU law.
And further that there are probably a lot of GDPR violations going on in the U.S but those are obviously harder to actually enforce (GDPR enforcement is already a big issue _within_ the union).
And further that there are probably a lot of GDPR violations going on in the U.S but those are obviously harder to actually enforce (GDPR enforcement is already a big issue _within_ the union).
Apple CEO Tim Cook once said in an interview with MSNBC in 2018, "The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer - if our customer was our product. We've elected not to do that."
This statement had triggered Mark Zuckerberg to the core that they became foes over the disagreement [1].
[1]Breaking Point: How Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook Became Foes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/technology/mark-zuckerber...
This statement had triggered Mark Zuckerberg to the core that they became foes over the disagreement [1].
[1]Breaking Point: How Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook Became Foes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/technology/mark-zuckerber...
Good! Now, fine them that amount another 485 times and the problem will be solved!
Seems like these sort of fines in the billions at tech companies is much more better than a outright ban as I said before.
Given that Meta has gotten another fine in the billions it is time for another privacy violating social network that has done similar [0] [1] and even worse privacy violations [2] [3] than Meta, and that is TikTok, which should also be fined in the billions just like Meta.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tiktok-user-data-europe-u...
[1] https://theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/02/tiktok-tells-...
[2] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[3] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
Given that Meta has gotten another fine in the billions it is time for another privacy violating social network that has done similar [0] [1] and even worse privacy violations [2] [3] than Meta, and that is TikTok, which should also be fined in the billions just like Meta.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tiktok-user-data-europe-u...
[1] https://theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/02/tiktok-tells-...
[2] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
[3] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
I am all for it, but china would consider this an attack on them an retaliate somehow (taxing european cars more for example). Just like the US government would intervene, if the fines would be actual existential for FB. Behind the scenes it is all politics.
The fine may not be significant enough given how much Meta has profited from this, but that was only one consequence of the decision.
The second consequence is that they have to stop doing this, which is far more damaging than the fine.
The second consequence is that they have to stop doing this, which is far more damaging than the fine.
Isn't this another way of saying Facebook for US and Facebook for Europe are incompatible, and must be separate businesses and networks?
America should learn from the EU here. Fine ByteDance billions repeatedly until they get the memo. Much easier to enforce than a ban.
Did Meta get the memo yet?
Yeah, as if they have to pay that fine next week.
They can appeal it to hell and back and negotiate installments. They can do a lot.
They already have a legal team. This is just the cost of doing business.
Meta is a tumor that has to be cut down from society but I think we all know it's not happening. Either too much money is promised through lobbying, or the policy-makers are asleep at the wheel.
They can appeal it to hell and back and negotiate installments. They can do a lot.
They already have a legal team. This is just the cost of doing business.
Meta is a tumor that has to be cut down from society but I think we all know it's not happening. Either too much money is promised through lobbying, or the policy-makers are asleep at the wheel.
I think the winds have shifted for tech companies. They are no longer plucky young startups, but they are billion dollar companies raking in profits.
Facebook did pay 725 million out of the original 5 billion to the FTC over Cambridge Analytica's scandal. That is a hefty fine still. [1]
Another $122 million out of $276 million over Whatsapp merger [2]
Granted, it does get negotiated down, but it really is the most they can do.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64075067
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-facebook-antitrust-idU...
Facebook did pay 725 million out of the original 5 billion to the FTC over Cambridge Analytica's scandal. That is a hefty fine still. [1]
Another $122 million out of $276 million over Whatsapp merger [2]
Granted, it does get negotiated down, but it really is the most they can do.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64075067
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-facebook-antitrust-idU...
> I think the winds have shifted for tech companies. They are no longer plucky young startups, but they are billion dollar companies raking in profits.
"What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world."
Microsoft was also once a plucky young startup. And Apple, and Oracle, and Dell, and…
"What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world."
Microsoft was also once a plucky young startup. And Apple, and Oracle, and Dell, and…
> They are no longer plucky young startups, but they are billion dollar companies raking in profits.
True, and exactly because of that they have much more leverage.
The only true wind shift would be for the regulators to get sick of their crap and start hitting hard at the first sign of misdemeanor. And that's the part I am skeptical about.
True, and exactly because of that they have much more leverage.
The only true wind shift would be for the regulators to get sick of their crap and start hitting hard at the first sign of misdemeanor. And that's the part I am skeptical about.
> They can appeal it to hell
Can they, though?
Can they, though?
Does this have anything to do with the class action lawsuit? I submitted a claim at https://facebookuserprivacysettlement.com/ earlier this month.
I am annoyed at how companies quite often only get fines.
More of a shakedown than anything else.
Placing sanctions on owners and board members might be more effective. And goverments appear to use that tactic more and more.
Placing sanctions on owners and board members might be more effective. And goverments appear to use that tactic more and more.
Ha, can you imagine if TikTok did this in reverse.
Should be much higher. Time for some more fines for others of Big-Tech/GAFAM spyware corporations.
In Australia, corporate fines are usually so trivial that the CEO wouldn’t have the slightest interest in the amount of money.
Great!! Now stop FATCA and show you actually care about the privacy of people that live in the EU.
Meta does $118B in revenue (2022 numbers). They claim 10% of ad revenue is generated by EU users. So this fine represents around 36 days of ad revenue generated by EU users. GDPR is in force since 5 years. So around 7 days of ad revenue per year lost to this fine (which will be appealed, obviously). I’d see this as cost of doing business with no real impact in Facebook/meta.
[deleted]
Fined ~1% of their yearly revenue. Got it.
Shouldn’t we compare to net income? Its 5.6% of their 2022 net income.
How much did Meta make out of this ?
Criminal organisation. They are now actively bullying open source developers with legal threats. Meta should be broken up.
A slap on the wrist. And the EU will be parading this around as a major win against "the evil tech conglomerates".
Well- yes. Redistribution of wealth and fining US tech to level the playing field is the whole point of the EU
FYI: There will be another round of layoffs at Meta again this Wednesday.
Pretty funny the WSJ is paywalling this, here's the present content in its entirety:
> Facebook owner Meta Platforms was fined $1.3 billion by European Union privacy regulators for sending user information to the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter, a record for the bloc.
> The ruling, expected to be announced later Monday, raises pressure on the U.S government to finalize a deal that would allow Meta and thousands of multinational companies to keep sending such information stateside.
> Updates to follow as news develops.
> Facebook owner Meta Platforms was fined $1.3 billion by European Union privacy regulators for sending user information to the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter, a record for the bloc.
> The ruling, expected to be announced later Monday, raises pressure on the U.S government to finalize a deal that would allow Meta and thousands of multinational companies to keep sending such information stateside.
> Updates to follow as news develops.
> Pretty funny the WSJ is paywalling this
FSVO "funny". You have indeed quoted the entire article.
FSVO "funny". You have indeed quoted the entire article.
There are so many big fines related to IT, at some point I tend to believe it's a way to get a back a part of all those taxes they don't pay.
It seems to be a diplomatic way to handle this thing.
It seems to be a diplomatic way to handle this thing.
These data transfer laws are stupid and anti-internet. If you don’t want to give your data to facebook, then don’t give your data to facebook.
I don't have a facebook account. Yet, my personal health information was shared to FB via an API that my health application was using. Not only this, meta will face zero consequences for this and freely use/sell this data.
of ffs... sometimes is virtually impossible to do so because (at least even recently) some companies virtually allowed communication only over social media (one example KLM pushed very hard to contact with them over facebook/whatsapp) :/ The tight regulation and privacy rules enforcements of those leviathans are _essential_
Maybe there should be some kind of quality seal for online services. As long as a service has not managed to comply with the law for an extended period of time companies are not allowed to harass their users into using those services. If they still do it, they also get their quality seal removed, with all the implications that come with that.
It doesn't have to be "quality seal" just "make user being able contact you via open-protocols... e-mail, contact form on the page, in-page chat option, voila.
US laws and executive orders are the actual anti-internet culprits here. Until the US recognizes that non-citizens also have rights, and they can't just do whatever with them, the EU MUST fight for their own citizens' rights. Anything else would be a rank betrayal.
I miss the 90s internet so badly... reminds me of the old bad taste joke:
I'm Not Saying Let's Go Kill All The Stupid People… I'm Just Saying Let’s Remove All The Warning Labels And Let The Problem Sort Itself Out.Those fines are ridiculously low considering VW had to pay 30$ billion in fines and other compensatory payments for the diesel emission standard violations (1). So anyone who thinks its the EU which is using fines compensate for tax evasion should have a hard look at what the US has been doing for years (and mostly to companies, which actually ARE paying taxes on their profits albeit not in the US)
(1) https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-larges...
(1) https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-larges...
If you are in the tech industry in the US this is actually a good thing, EU is trying very hard to remain and become even more uncompetitive.
Already, the EU is mostly a breeding ground for talent that is then extracted by the US. The more hostile and bureaucratic they become, the grater the pressure for the talent to leave.
It may appear that what the EU is doing is being hostile to US companies - and some individual US companies will indeed suffer. But the actual effect is to incentivize these companies to extract talent out of the EU as an insurance plan in the event of a pull out.
Already, the EU is mostly a breeding ground for talent that is then extracted by the US. The more hostile and bureaucratic they become, the grater the pressure for the talent to leave.
It may appear that what the EU is doing is being hostile to US companies - and some individual US companies will indeed suffer. But the actual effect is to incentivize these companies to extract talent out of the EU as an insurance plan in the event of a pull out.
Given that native English speakers have a leg up in HR processes over here, I agree that everything that makes Europe a better living space is a nice thing for Americans who want out and largely can get out.
I work for a European tech company, and we have a noticeable uptick of American applicants over the years. Common (as in: almost every time) interview questions I answer are "Is it safe there? I work in [say, Portland] and we had just had gunshots again across the street" and "Can my kids ride the subway alone?". Colleagues who made the leap tend to tell me they are "glad they got out".
I work for a European tech company, and we have a noticeable uptick of American applicants over the years. Common (as in: almost every time) interview questions I answer are "Is it safe there? I work in [say, Portland] and we had just had gunshots again across the street" and "Can my kids ride the subway alone?". Colleagues who made the leap tend to tell me they are "glad they got out".
There’s some truth in what you wrote, but certainly this brand of “competitiveness” (meaning tragedy of the privacy commons) should not be considered a worthy goal to compete on.