15 ms·

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

by di4na 3y ago

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.

Spivak 3y ago
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.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  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”.
- di4na 3y ago
  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?
  - whiplash451 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by basic human rights?
    - di4na 3y ago
      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.
- wmf 3y ago
  Or don't build global networks. Build local networks and federate them.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    And the moment a user from the UK messages a user in the US?
    - wmf 3y ago
      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.
      - di4na 3y ago
        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

by di4na 3y ago

Spivak 3y ago

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.

robin_reala 3y ago
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”.
di4na 3y ago
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?
- whiplash451 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by basic human rights?
  - di4na 3y ago
    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.
wmf 3y ago
Or don't build global networks. Build local networks and federate them.
- Spivak 3y ago
  And the moment a user from the UK messages a user in the US?
  - wmf 3y ago
    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.
    - di4na 3y ago
      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