3 ms·

"Facebook’s UK users will remain subject to UK privacy law, which for now tracks the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)" - so, what chan

"Facebook’s UK users will remain subject to UK privacy law, which for now tracks the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)" - so, what changes for users?

chrisseaton 6y ago
I think 'for now' could possibly be pretty short.
eterm 6y ago
What changes is that the regulation won't be backed by the EU, so perhaps Facebook sees the UK regulator as toothless, or at least less likely to pursue things?
- pmlnr 6y ago
  What's toothless is trying to enforce EU rules on tech companies based in Ireland. EU rules look great, until one of the nations decide to sh*t on it, see Hungary (I'm a Hungarian citizen, but not really proud of it any more) vs EU recently on budgeting, or Ireland being unwilling to actually enforce any EU regulations.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless, given it has so far been among the most severe in penalising large businesses under the much greater powers it acquired under the GDPR. This could be more of a strategic move from Facebook, anticipating the UK government wanting a quick post-Brexit trade deal with the US and having limited practical room to manoeuvre in negotiating one. In particular, the UK government presumably doesn't want to commit political suicide, so it's very unlikely to compromise on issues like the NHS or food standards. That means it needs something else, and probably something big, that it can bring to the table. And that could well be favours for US tech firms that are already here, such as agreeing not to go after them for extra taxes and brushing anything resembling privacy protections under the carpet. Whether that is a good bet for Facebook to make is a different question. If the Johnson administration doesn't manage to seal a deal very quickly -- and it does have a few other things on its plate right now, not to mention a known-hostile incoming Biden administration across the pond -- then there is a decent chance that any future US-UK trade deal will actually be concluded a few years later. By that time, our respective governments might well be led by Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer, for example, in which case Big Tech might have much bigger worries anyway. But since no-one has a crystal ball, presumably those tech firms are going to try to insulate themselves from unnecessary risk in the fallout from Brexit, and this move by Facebook probably achieves that at a reasonable cost right now, regardless of what might happen some years later.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    > It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless, given it has so far been among the most severe in penalising large businesses under the much greater powers it acquired under the GDPR. hahahahahahahaha. The ICO has about as many teeth as a newborn baby. They have actual knowledge of criminality by the adtech industry and they refuse to regulate. They say as much in their most recent annual report! No, what the ICO does is issue press releases and notices of intent and then either does nothing or backs way the fuck down. Just look at Marriot, BA, or AIQ for examples of the reality of the enforcement issues being nothing like their initial announcements of enforcement. Denham is completely incompetent, and her office simply can't get its act together.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless Given that the maximum penalty it can levy is £20m, it is completely toothless against any major corporation. BA got off with a slapped wrist after their fiasco. The GDPR looks good on paper but where exactly are these 4% of global turnover fines it was supposed to make happen?
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      I think you have misunderstood how the maximum penalties work under the GDPR. In any case, it makes sense that those maximums would be used only in the most serious cases of wilful violations. I wonder whether internally at the ICO they might be waiting for a chance to make an example of one of the tech giants whose whole business model, unlike the organisations penalised so far, is based on exploiting personal data in questionable ways.
jfengel 6y ago
It sounds like what changes for users is that UK law will drift from EU law, and so Facebook wants to mediate that through its US office rather than its Irish office. It will still have to follow UK law, but not have to pass it through the EU as well. FB and Ireland are already fighting over privacy, and the US and UK are negotiating new terms. That may result in changes to UK privacy laws, which FB will be able to take advantage of.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
breakingcups 6y ago
Cynical me is thinking Facebook might do this now to rip the band-aid off before the UK privacy law actually gets repealed, because this shift to California terms would be much bigger news if it happened as a result of the privacy laws actually being repealed. Now Facebook can still easily, with a somewhat straight face, say that this is purely necessitated by Brexit legalities while in reality they're just prepping for the repeal.
humps 6y ago
Nothing changes now, parity is maintained between the EU and UK versions. However, this had to be done now because Facebook needs to allow time to make the transition and ask UK users if they agree to the terms again now they are separate from the EU. They can't wait to do this because as soon as either the UK or EU changes their laws (may happen in a month, may not for years), the terms would no longer be valid for one set of users. Facebook would end up in a situation where its terms are invalid for millions of users potentially for months.

"Facebook’s UK users will remain subject to UK privacy law, which for now tracks the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)" - so, what changes for users?

chrisseaton 6y ago

I think 'for now' could possibly be pretty short.

eterm 6y ago

What changes is that the regulation won't be backed by the EU, so perhaps Facebook sees the UK regulator as toothless, or at least less likely to pursue things?

pmlnr 6y ago
What's toothless is trying to enforce EU rules on tech companies based in Ireland. EU rules look great, until one of the nations decide to sh*t on it, see Hungary (I'm a Hungarian citizen, but not really proud of it any more) vs EU recently on budgeting, or Ireland being unwilling to actually enforce any EU regulations.
Silhouette 6y ago
It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless, given it has so far been among the most severe in penalising large businesses under the much greater powers it acquired under the GDPR. This could be more of a strategic move from Facebook, anticipating the UK government wanting a quick post-Brexit trade deal with the US and having limited practical room to manoeuvre in negotiating one. In particular, the UK government presumably doesn't want to commit political suicide, so it's very unlikely to compromise on issues like the NHS or food standards. That means it needs something else, and probably something big, that it can bring to the table. And that could well be favours for US tech firms that are already here, such as agreeing not to go after them for extra taxes and brushing anything resembling privacy protections under the carpet. Whether that is a good bet for Facebook to make is a different question. If the Johnson administration doesn't manage to seal a deal very quickly -- and it does have a few other things on its plate right now, not to mention a known-hostile incoming Biden administration across the pond -- then there is a decent chance that any future US-UK trade deal will actually be concluded a few years later. By that time, our respective governments might well be led by Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer, for example, in which case Big Tech might have much bigger worries anyway. But since no-one has a crystal ball, presumably those tech firms are going to try to insulate themselves from unnecessary risk in the fallout from Brexit, and this move by Facebook probably achieves that at a reasonable cost right now, regardless of what might happen some years later.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  > It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless, given it has so far been among the most severe in penalising large businesses under the much greater powers it acquired under the GDPR. hahahahahahahaha. The ICO has about as many teeth as a newborn baby. They have actual knowledge of criminality by the adtech industry and they refuse to regulate. They say as much in their most recent annual report! No, what the ICO does is issue press releases and notices of intent and then either does nothing or backs way the fuck down. Just look at Marriot, BA, or AIQ for examples of the reality of the enforcement issues being nothing like their initial announcements of enforcement. Denham is completely incompetent, and her office simply can't get its act together.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  It would be odd to see the Information Commissioner (the UK's data protection regulator) as toothless Given that the maximum penalty it can levy is £20m, it is completely toothless against any major corporation. BA got off with a slapped wrist after their fiasco. The GDPR looks good on paper but where exactly are these 4% of global turnover fines it was supposed to make happen?
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    I think you have misunderstood how the maximum penalties work under the GDPR. In any case, it makes sense that those maximums would be used only in the most serious cases of wilful violations. I wonder whether internally at the ICO they might be waiting for a chance to make an example of one of the tech giants whose whole business model, unlike the organisations penalised so far, is based on exploiting personal data in questionable ways.

jfengel 6y ago

It sounds like what changes for users is that UK law will drift from EU law, and so Facebook wants to mediate that through its US office rather than its Irish office. It will still have to follow UK law, but not have to pass it through the EU as well. FB and Ireland are already fighting over privacy, and the US and UK are negotiating new terms. That may result in changes to UK privacy laws, which FB will be able to take advantage of.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

breakingcups 6y ago

Cynical me is thinking Facebook might do this now to rip the band-aid off before the UK privacy law actually gets repealed, because this shift to California terms would be much bigger news if it happened as a result of the privacy laws actually being repealed. Now Facebook can still easily, with a somewhat straight face, say that this is purely necessitated by Brexit legalities while in reality they're just prepping for the repeal.

humps 6y ago

Nothing changes now, parity is maintained between the EU and UK versions. However, this had to be done now because Facebook needs to allow time to make the transition and ask UK users if they agree to the terms again now they are separate from the EU. They can't wait to do this because as soon as either the UK or EU changes their laws (may happen in a month, may not for years), the terms would no longer be valid for one set of users. Facebook would end up in a situation where its terms are invalid for millions of users potentially for months.