3 ms·

> So Facebook would have to redesign their sharding. Who cares? Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? Personally I

> So Facebook would have to redesign their sharding. Who cares? Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? Personally I strongly suspect that once the precedent is set -- that is, regulation requiring user data to remain strictly on servers in the user's country and nowhere else -- the entire tech industry would be severely impacted. > the questions of "what if something has >10ms latency" don't really matter Internal point lookups for each individual piece of content would go from sub-ms (intra-region) to now being upwards of 200ms (network requests spanning the globe). And for many social applications, a given page contains content from dozens of sources. Much of this could be parallelized, but even then, the total wall time for each parallelized multi-get is determined by whichever source had the worst-case latency. In any case, we're not just talking about tens of ms of impact here, but rather a latency increase of 2 orders of magnitude (or more!) for even the simplest lookup operations.

trasz 5y ago
> Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? Of course not, Facebook is not the only company parasitizing on users' privacy. The point still stands, though: it's an absolutely tiny (compared to the company's income) amount of work, versus users's rights. As for delays - again, FB routinely displays much worse problems, adding some more delay there wouldn't be noticeable.
teachingassist 5y ago
> Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? It's quite clear that GDPR allows data to cross the border, if particular safeguards are guaranteed by the data recipient. That continues to be the advice generally given following the rejection of "Privacy Shield" e.g. by https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/ This particular ruling affects only Facebook (and is specifically against Facebook), because it is only Facebook that has here been identified as failing to offer those safeguards. Google similarly is a tech giant operating across this border, and doesn't currently face such a sanction.

trasz 5y ago

> Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? Of course not, Facebook is not the only company parasitizing on users' privacy. The point still stands, though: it's an absolutely tiny (compared to the company's income) amount of work, versus users's rights. As for delays - again, FB routinely displays much worse problems, adding some more delay there wouldn't be noticeable.

teachingassist 5y ago

> Do you believe Facebook is the only company that would ever be affected by this? It's quite clear that GDPR allows data to cross the border, if particular safeguards are guaranteed by the data recipient. That continues to be the advice generally given following the rejection of "Privacy Shield" e.g. by https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/third-countries/ This particular ruling affects only Facebook (and is specifically against Facebook), because it is only Facebook that has here been identified as failing to offer those safeguards. Google similarly is a tech giant operating across this border, and doesn't currently face such a sanction.