5 ms·

No, they're calling the bluff on the hypocrisy of the laws to the extent they are singling out Facebook. If EU pursued everyone to the same extent, it would be

No, they're calling the bluff on the hypocrisy of the laws to the extent they are singling out Facebook. If EU pursued everyone to the same extent, it would be seriously damaging. They're going to have to figure something else out, especially given the there's nothing inherently wrong with hosting and processing data offshore. If 'feels' like things could be improved if data were processed locally but the real consumer damage is not hugely material. I wonder if there is just a better way to deal with the issue, for example, by requiring that Facebook adhere to some minimum set of rules and that's that.

Barrin92 5y ago
No, it doesn't single out Facebook at all. It applies to every company equally. What singles Facebook out is their practices. Equal treatment under the law means treating those equally who act equally, in this case it'd just be doing its job. Microsoft for example, already voluntarily stores data in Europe (https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boundary/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boun...) And of course the user damage is material, because American data protection laws are weaker than European ones. That's why they're shoving the data across the pond in the first place. >by requiring that Facebook adhere to some minimum set of rules and that's that. that literally is what the data protection legislation is about
- jollybean 5y ago
  " It applies to every company equally. " It doesn't though. If laws are not prosecuted consistently, then they are not 'applied' consistently. There's a lot of populist and political outrage (and jealousy) in the EU that I think has disproportionately singled out FB and it lacks hugely material legitimacy on the data protection front. If FB magically had all EU citizens data hosted in the EU ... it wouldn't make a shred of a difference. Nobody would notice. It would be largely inconsequential. For corporate and government data, i.e. Google Docs, I think it starts to make much more of a difference. And if the EU would sort out their own IP laws (i.e. Ireland) they would be able to tax more efficiently. 'The Problem' is not so much FB or FAANGS, it's that Europe has been absent from the game and has zero winners in important and developing areas. If Google were based in Europe I think attitudes would be different and it would have little to do with 'data sovereignty'. I support the notion of regionally hosted data, but it's a bit of a distraction.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgift 5y ago
    > It doesn't though. If laws are not prosecuted consistently, then they are not 'applied' consistently. Which company that breaks GDPR on the same scale as Facebook is not prosecuted though? If you make such an accusation please provide at least an example. If you mean that the EU is using more resources to hold Facebook accountable than some two person shop: Yes. In the face of limited personal and time, you'll have to choose which to pursue first. And the EU has wisely decided that going after the big companies first gives the most bang for the buck.
    - thawaya3113 5y ago
      The alternative, of course, is the U.S. approach, where say the IRS will not go after the richest tax criminals at all, but instead will go after the poorest/middle class because they know the latter, unlike the former, cannot afford expensive lawyers to fight them in court.
  - thawaya3113 5y ago
    Americans have been complaining about the EU fining American companies because they “lost” since at least the Microsoft penalties. And it has been a demonstrable lie right from the beginning, that only works because sites like HN, being US focused, will only post EU fines on American companies, and ignore the ones on European ones. But European regulators have almost always cracked down harder on European companies than American ones. Here, for example, is a list of the 25 largest GDPR fines from a couple of years ago. https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/ https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/ The vast majority of fines are against European companies (even if you slot the European subsidies of American companies, like Google Ireland, under the U.S.). Unsurprisingly the largest fines tend to be against massive U.S. companies for the simple reason that they have the most data, but despite the U.S. dominating online services, and as you state, EU companies “losing” online, GDPR has fines far more EU companies than US ones.
- vba616 5y ago
  The idea of data not leaving the EU is something I never fully understood. Years ago, before GDPR was a thing, it was still required, at least in some situations, to store data in the EU. But...how does having a server physically in the EU, and people on other continents ssh'ing in, protect EU citizens? It had crossed my mind that maybe only EU citizens were supposed to access it, but I'm not a lawyer, much less an international one.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    It’s all about jurisdiction. If someone logs into an EU based server from the US, they are expected to abide by the laws of that EU country.
    - vba616 5y ago
      If you're doing business in/with the EU, you're probably subject to their jurisdiction. But I was talking about some kind of data protection laws. You know what Remote Desktop is? People have, at least in some places and at some times, acted as if keeping data in the EU, meant that you could not, like, copy files off a server in the EU to a computer in the US, but you could sit in the US and access a computer via Remote Desktop in the EU to do the same work. Sort of like handling toxic materials with waldos. But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. It's like when people say you can view information on a website, but not copy it. Viewing it is copying it; that's how computers work.
      - rosndo 5y ago
        I think you might misunderstand how courts work. It’s very much humans making decisions, not computers. > meant that you could not, like, copy files off a server in the EU to a computer in the US, but you could sit in the US and access a computer via Remote Desktop in the EU to do the same work. All of this still makes a huge difference when the cops show up with a search warrant.

Barrin92 5y ago

No, it doesn't single out Facebook at all. It applies to every company equally. What singles Facebook out is their practices. Equal treatment under the law means treating those equally who act equally, in this case it'd just be doing its job. Microsoft for example, already voluntarily stores data in Europe (https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boundary/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boun...) And of course the user damage is material, because American data protection laws are weaker than European ones. That's why they're shoving the data across the pond in the first place. >by requiring that Facebook adhere to some minimum set of rules and that's that. that literally is what the data protection legislation is about

jollybean 5y ago
" It applies to every company equally. " It doesn't though. If laws are not prosecuted consistently, then they are not 'applied' consistently. There's a lot of populist and political outrage (and jealousy) in the EU that I think has disproportionately singled out FB and it lacks hugely material legitimacy on the data protection front. If FB magically had all EU citizens data hosted in the EU ... it wouldn't make a shred of a difference. Nobody would notice. It would be largely inconsequential. For corporate and government data, i.e. Google Docs, I think it starts to make much more of a difference. And if the EU would sort out their own IP laws (i.e. Ireland) they would be able to tax more efficiently. 'The Problem' is not so much FB or FAANGS, it's that Europe has been absent from the game and has zero winners in important and developing areas. If Google were based in Europe I think attitudes would be different and it would have little to do with 'data sovereignty'. I support the notion of regionally hosted data, but it's a bit of a distraction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sgift 5y ago
  > It doesn't though. If laws are not prosecuted consistently, then they are not 'applied' consistently. Which company that breaks GDPR on the same scale as Facebook is not prosecuted though? If you make such an accusation please provide at least an example. If you mean that the EU is using more resources to hold Facebook accountable than some two person shop: Yes. In the face of limited personal and time, you'll have to choose which to pursue first. And the EU has wisely decided that going after the big companies first gives the most bang for the buck.
  - thawaya3113 5y ago
    The alternative, of course, is the U.S. approach, where say the IRS will not go after the richest tax criminals at all, but instead will go after the poorest/middle class because they know the latter, unlike the former, cannot afford expensive lawyers to fight them in court.
- thawaya3113 5y ago
  Americans have been complaining about the EU fining American companies because they “lost” since at least the Microsoft penalties. And it has been a demonstrable lie right from the beginning, that only works because sites like HN, being US focused, will only post EU fines on American companies, and ignore the ones on European ones. But European regulators have almost always cracked down harder on European companies than American ones. Here, for example, is a list of the 25 largest GDPR fines from a couple of years ago. https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/ https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/ The vast majority of fines are against European companies (even if you slot the European subsidies of American companies, like Google Ireland, under the U.S.). Unsurprisingly the largest fines tend to be against massive U.S. companies for the simple reason that they have the most data, but despite the U.S. dominating online services, and as you state, EU companies “losing” online, GDPR has fines far more EU companies than US ones.
vba616 5y ago
The idea of data not leaving the EU is something I never fully understood. Years ago, before GDPR was a thing, it was still required, at least in some situations, to store data in the EU. But...how does having a server physically in the EU, and people on other continents ssh'ing in, protect EU citizens? It had crossed my mind that maybe only EU citizens were supposed to access it, but I'm not a lawyer, much less an international one.
- rosndo 5y ago
  It’s all about jurisdiction. If someone logs into an EU based server from the US, they are expected to abide by the laws of that EU country.
  - vba616 5y ago
    If you're doing business in/with the EU, you're probably subject to their jurisdiction. But I was talking about some kind of data protection laws. You know what Remote Desktop is? People have, at least in some places and at some times, acted as if keeping data in the EU, meant that you could not, like, copy files off a server in the EU to a computer in the US, but you could sit in the US and access a computer via Remote Desktop in the EU to do the same work. Sort of like handling toxic materials with waldos. But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. It's like when people say you can view information on a website, but not copy it. Viewing it is copying it; that's how computers work.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      I think you might misunderstand how courts work. It’s very much humans making decisions, not computers. > meant that you could not, like, copy files off a server in the EU to a computer in the US, but you could sit in the US and access a computer via Remote Desktop in the EU to do the same work. All of this still makes a huge difference when the cops show up with a search warrant.