Slashdot Mirror


Facebook To Put 1.5 Billion Users Out of Reach of New EU Privacy Law (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Facebook: If a new European law restricting what companies can do with people's online data went into effect tomorrow, almost 1.9 billion Facebook users around the world would be protected by it. The online social network is making changes that ensure the number will be much smaller. Facebook members outside the United States and Canada, whether they know it or not, are currently governed by terms of service agreed with the company's international headquarters in Ireland. Next month, Facebook is planning to make that the case for only European users, meaning 1.5 billion members in Africa, Asia, Australia and Latin America will not fall under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which takes effect on May 25. That removes a huge potential liability for Facebook, as the new EU law allows for fines of up to 4 percent of global annual revenue for infractions, which in Facebook's case could mean billions of dollars.

95 comments

  1. Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Zuckerberg's apology tour was short-lived, back to usual business.

    1. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Most likely, but it may also lead to more serious implications here where Facebook can be blocked from the EU unless they conform to the EU regulations for EU citizens.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Computershack · · Score: 2

      Most likely, but it may also lead to more serious implications here where Facebook can be blocked from the EU unless they conform to the EU regulations for EU citizens.

      I think I'd call that a win for the EU if Facebook ended up being blocked.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    3. Re: Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. What slimeballs. I knew the hearing was just for show. Pretty pathetic, and pretty clear that they know themselves they don't have the fattest chance in hell of creating a legitimate business model. The dubious utility of Facebook becomes crystal clear when a price tag is attached, it isn't worth a user paying for.

      All that has to happen is for a few other big countries to adopt measures similar to the EU, and they are Zucked. Can't happen soon enough.

    4. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      He never apologised that Facebook collected data, only that a third party used it inappropriately.

    5. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you guys are idtiots. It is all about opt in button, anyone here will opt in anyway during account creation. Big deal, are you not gonna create account if you see one more tick box??? Please people agree to most retarded EULas online because they have no other option.

      FB will send all people updated agreement next month with one stupid checkbox, if they don';t tick it account t will be caped in some way or the other....sure everyone will tick it.

    6. Re: Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Under GDPR they aren't allowed to deny you service if you refuse to opt in.

    7. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      FB will send all people updated agreement next month with one stupid checkbox

      The new European law specifically forbids that sort of behavior.

      "Requests must be granular, asking for separate consent for separate types of processing. Blanket consent is not allowed."

      https://www.cennydd.com/writin...

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by houghi · · Score: 1

      That was the intend of the law. Side effect is that other businesses are affected also. More info on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://www.eugdpr.org/

      The idea was to protect EU people. This is a law for the people, by the people. (Yes, I wen there)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's an Irish company. The consent popup will be in Gaelic.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re: Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by nnull · · Score: 2

      Big difference in cultures that value privacy.

    11. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, perhaps we will get rid of companies having FaceBook pages then.
      I'm not going to register a FaceBook account just to find out what times you are open.

    12. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is cuma liom, ní léighim an leagan Bearla.

    13. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      This is a law for the people, by the people.

      Harumph. Sounds like the exact sort of socialist nonsense that American soldiers fought against and died to prevent.

    14. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its their new Jekyll and Hide policy.

    15. Re: Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just let your statement stand there, as an example of everything that is wrong in the USA.

      I does not require any comment ... or oppression.

    16. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      They won't block it, they'll just fine the ever-loving shit out of it.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    17. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They're going to be asking EU citizens for consent.
      Every non-EU citizen is going to get a new terms of use to accept as well, so they're exempt from the EU rules. Those new terms will be accept to stop using the service.

      I do wonder which non-EU country they're going to be based out of though. They won't be able to use Irish tax laws for their advantage for the majority of their users soon.

    18. Re:Zuck's apology tour is over, back to business by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You mean genociding the original owners on N. America?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. EU Type protection for all users by williamyf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook already stated that they will afford the same EU type level of protection for ALL the user base.

    This change just aford them two things:
    1.) Protection if by mistake they screw up and end up in a non-compliance event with EU directives (say, human error, security breach, inside attack). So, instead of all of the users suing, unly those in the EU suing.

    2.) In case they have a change of heart and decide to not afford those protections any more, Is easier if the non-EU users are also outside EU jusrisdiction.

     

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Their problem with selective enforcement will be knowing that I'm not a European living somewhere else. One slip-up and... lawsuit!

      Hopefully the USA and other countries will soon have similar laws, making this moot.

      Facebook, et. al. are scum. The world needs this law. Are 'targeted ads' really enough of an excuse for what they do, ie. Are they really that much more valuable? I doubt it. Advertiser will still pay for ads.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Targeted ads are useless anyway. People encountering them gets the ads after they already have bought an item of that type.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook already stated that they will afford the same EU type level of protection for ALL the user base.

      This change just aford them two things:
      1.) Protection if by mistake they screw up and end up in a non-compliance event with EU directives (say, human error, security breach, inside attack). So, instead of all of the users suing, unly those in the EU suing.

      2.) In case they have a change of heart and decide to not afford those protections any more, Is easier if the non-EU users are also outside EU jusrisdiction.

      And just why do you believe Fuckerberg and his crew?

      Yes, he deserves that name.

      Because this is the group of meth-peddling gangsters that says they don't sell your data, they only sell access to your data.

    4. Re:EU Type protection for all users by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Facebook already stated that they will afford the same EU type level of protection for ALL the user base.

      "Why should I be interested in (or care about) the silly things that I said yesterday?" -- Konrad Adenauer, Former German Chancellor

      Facebook lies like a rug.

      We're not reading Zuckerberg's lips . . . we're reading his mind.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      BULL

      SHIT

      If they wanted to do this, they'd simply leave the data where it is.

      Please don't spit on my cake and call it frosting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Targeted ads CAN be sensible if they're for the general type of item. When I buy a new CPU, showing me ads for graphic cards rather than running shoes is sensible.

      Ok, that I have adblockers and keep tuning them to the point where no ads get shown render both moot but ... shhhh, keep the ad industry thinking it is relevant, so it keeps funding the pages we like!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The average Magic 8 Ball gives you more sensible and more truthful answers, so why bother?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDRP does not apply to situation where an EU citizen is living outside of EU. However it applies when a non-EU citizen lives inside the EU. It is a bit more complex but in practice it can be reduced to the location of the user at time of transaction

    9. Re: EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in my opinion, and we all know that's not why they really mine data.

    10. Re:EU Type protection for all users by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I hope they will afford to pay taxes if they are no longer an Irish company.

    11. Re:EU Type protection for all users by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So, instead of all of the users suing, unly those in the EU suing.

      Actually it wouldn't be up to individual users to sue Facebook. That's the great thing about it, the option is there to sue individually but there are also national watchdogs who will step in when it affects a lot of people, and for multinationals there can be an EU level investigation.

      If the EU decides to take an interest they could be hit with those 4% fines. 4% of revenue, not profit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Facebook already stated that they will afford the same EU type level of protection for ALL the user base."

      They also said that they wouldn't.

      I guess we just have to decide which of their contradictory claims is most likely. Based on this move, I know where I'd hedge my bet.

    13. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      glaze

    14. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Damouze · · Score: 1

      Ask again later.

      --
      And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
    15. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      2.) When they proceed as planned and and walk back those lipservice promises of protections made to get Congress off their back, it's easier if the non-EU users are already outside EU jusrisdiction.

      FTFY

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    16. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why should I be interested in (or care about) the silly things that I said yesterday?" -- Konrad Adenauer, Former German Chancellor

      Can I just say [[Citation Needed]] or [[you just made that up didn't you]]. It sounds good, but then you realise it's a more or less contemporary politician saying something sensible. You just overstretched credibility. If you had assigned it to a pop star then we might have believed you.

    17. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULL

      SHIT

      If they wanted to do this, they'd simply leave the data where it is.

      Please don't spit on my cake and call it frosting.

      Spit? Close...

    18. Re: EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Wrong. As an EU citizen my data stored on Facebook or whoever's server belongs to me as long as they trade within the EU. If they don't like it they know what to do.

      As a none-EU citizen your data that is stored within the EU is also subject to GDPR and you are afforded the same rights under the GDPR regardless of which country you live in.

    19. Re:EU Type protection for all users by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "Outlook not so good", yeah, I knew that back in the 90s

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    20. Re:EU Type protection for all users by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      When I buy a new CPU, showing me ads for graphic cards rather than running shoes is sensible.

      Remember the 90s when "targeted" meant that they displayed graphic card ads on sites related to computer stuff? And running shoes on Yahoo! Sports?

      I'm fine if the targeting is not at individuals but at the topic of the site they are browsing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Targeted ads are useless anyway. People encountering them gets the ads after they already have bought an item of that type.

      They might be effective if they can show you them while you're searching for an item (or researching it).

      Facebook can't do that though. That's where google comes into the picture.

      (and Google doesn't need to profile you in order to include relevant ads in searches - they have the search query!)

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:EU Type protection for all users by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Are they really that much more valuable?

      Once targeted ads started becoming a thing I noticed a precipitous drop off for ads for singles in my area and feminine hygiene products. So I consider it a plus.

      Spend some time shopping for things which are visually appealing. Then at least the websites you visit might display to you visually appealing items.

    23. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the part where Mr. Zuckerberg told that to the US Senate. In effect, he would be lieing, again. How many before he's actually charged?

      Right. None.

      There was a rather odd comment I still remember from one of the Senators that was to the effect - "We'll discuss this further at your office when we meet next week". Wonder what other favors were exchanged after his "interview".

    24. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FaceBooks business model isn't targetted ads. It's being able to shape your social circle.
      When your friends posts generic memes they can control which ones you see and which ones you have to look for specifically.
      It is easy for them to make it look to you like certain opinions are more prevalent in your family and group of friends than they really are.
      The friends that agree with the pushed opinions will be more outspoken about them and those who disagree are more likely to keep quiet.

      It doesn't matter that that the scripts they use have a lot of false positives and negatives, they can still skew peoples opinion in the direction they want.

      Their business model is being able to make it so that 10% of the population changes their opinion from "strongly disagree" to "slightly disagree" or "no opinion" in the next poll about whatever subject is paid for.

    25. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Muros · · Score: 1

      Once targeted ads started becoming a thing I noticed a precipitous drop off for ads for singles in my area and feminine hygiene products. So I consider it a plus.

      Yeah, I usually get ads for backup solutions, CRM packages, etc. now. Definitely better than having half naked people following you around the internet all the time.

    26. Re: EU Type protection for all users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the person in the EU uses a proxy to make him appear as if he lives somewhere else. Profit!!!

    27. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Baki · · Score: 1

      All ads are subjective information at best, mostly pure lies, paid for by the buyers of any product that advertises. It is a horrible and immoral tax, wasting our time and money, in exchange for higher product prices (obviously, the marketing budget is paid for by the profit margins of the products).

      All companies that live from advertisements, whether targeted or not, are "scum" in my book.

      Everyone should avoid companies & brands that advertise more than average.

      Non-profit consumer organizations should provide honest and transparent information on products, not the sellers and notorious liars.

    28. Re: EU Type protection for all users by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Nope, its got utterly nothing to do with "being an EU citizen".

      Article 3, Section 2 of the GDPR, entitled 'Territorial Scope' explicitly states:

      This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union...

      Nothing about citizenship, everything about the physical location of the data subject. If you are an EU citizen residing in the US, you fall outside the scope of the GDPR.

    29. Re:EU Type protection for all users by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I just posted this down-thread, but its worth posting here as well - the "Territorial scope" is based on the physical location of the "data subject", not your status as an EU citizen.

      If you are an EU citizen living in the US, you fall outside the scope of the GDPR regardless of where your data resides.

      https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdp...

    30. Re:EU Type protection for all users by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Which is ~$2B :)

  3. Where Does Facebook Consider My Shadow Profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have European (EU), Asian, and North American phone numbers. I do not have a Facebook account. My contacts have probably shared my info with Facebook. Does Facebook consider me to be covered by EU privacy directives or not?

    1. Re: Where Does Facebook Consider My Shadow Profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your Personal Data has been given to Facebook by an EU citizen then yes, you are afforded the same rights as an EU citizen under the GDPR and should submit a Subject Access Request to Facebook for all the data they have on you.

      If they don't reply within one month (30 days) with the information you requested then you should report them to a Supervisory Authority in an EU Member State of your choosing.

      Preferably not Poland as it has too many derogations in favour of businesses to the detriment of individual Data Subjects.

    2. Re: Where Does Facebook Consider My Shadow Profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your Personal Data has been given to Facebook by an EU citizen then yes, you are afforded the same rights as an EU citizen under the GDPR and should submit a Subject Access Request to Facebook for all the data they have on you.

      If they don't reply within one month (30 days) with the information you requested then you should report them to a Supervisory Authority in an EU Member State of your choosing.

      Preferably not Poland as it has too many derogations in favour of businesses to the detriment of individual Data Subjects.

      Not a lawyer so take this with a pinch of salt, but I'd recommend Germany. I remember reading somewhere years ago that the laws there are somewhat favourable for lawsuits when you are not a resident in the country. Ireland in theory would be good, but you never know how beholden to corporations the people in power there are.

  4. "could mean billions of dollars" by ebonum · · Score: 4, Informative

    "fines of up to 4 percent of global annual revenue for infractions"
    Revenue = 12.97B
    4% = 518 million

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    1. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now let's ponder what counts as an "infraction". If every single EU citizen wronged that way is one, this could get VERY expensive VERY soon.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4% per infraction.

    3. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only up to a maximum of €25,000,000

    4. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#Sanctions

    5. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember that it apples to EU citizens. Not all EU citizens reside in the EU. Facebook will still, as I understand it, face liability for collecting the data of EU citizens residing outside the EU as long as they do any business in the EU. This will be interesting to watch being played out.

    6. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by trowell · · Score: 2

      "a fine up to €20 million or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater"

    7. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I feel like moving to a country outside the EU... Switzerland, you're hiring IT security experts?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: "could mean billions of dollars" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDPR applies to EEA.

    9. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by PPH · · Score: 1

      I feel like moving to a country outside the EU

      The UK?

      [ducking and running]

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:"could mean billions of dollars" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      GREAT idea!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. I dropped Farcebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too all good things must end. Eventually even good things become corrupt and Facebook is no exception. I deleted my account and it probably should have never created a profile to begin with.

  6. Yea, except it's facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they'll never pay a dime.

  7. Will they be taxed like a non-EU company now too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems a bit too much of having their cake and eating it too, if they can say their are an Irish company for the tax breaks but not an Irish company for the data ownership.

  8. I used to fill out all forum profile fields. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Email, IRC, pic, hobbies, age, real name, location, etc. Then one day I realized what an idiot I was and slowly scrubbed every forum profile.

  9. I'm an American by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so they get to pay Irish tax rates, I ought to get Irish privacy. I ought to, but looks like I don't.

    I do like how the EU does fines. A percentage of gross revenue. Here in the states we do dollar amounts, which tends to make them less than the profit from the crime.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm an American by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Facebook (US) is incorporated in Delaware - the office of which might be big enough for one person to sit in a closet to answer a phone.

  10. What's there to apologize for? by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is nothing to apologize for. If newspapers assert the right — both legal and ethical — to publish state secrets they obtain as a result of somebody's felony, and the courts agree, how can Facebook (or anyone else) be denied the right to or even reprimanded for publishing personal information given to it willingly?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What's there to apologize for? by radja · · Score: 1

      state secrets are not a human right.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    2. Re:What's there to apologize for? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      States shouldn't have secrets from their citizens.

    3. Re:What's there to apologize for? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      Whistle-blowers are afforded protection under the law (at least in theory) as an exception. The idea is that a whistle-blower has the public interest at heart and is acting, not out of self-interest, but for the common good.

      Furthermore, doxing private citizens isn't whistle-blowing and neither is collecting surveillance profiles on 1.9 billion people. J Edgar Hoover collected surveillance profiles on his friends (if you can call them that) and adversaries alike. I think you'll have a pretty hard time convincing anyone that Hoover was acting in the public's best interests.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    4. Re:What's there to apologize for? by mi · · Score: 1

      Whistle-blowers are afforded protection under the law (at least in theory) as an exception.

      Bradley Manning, for one, was not a "whistle blower". He just wanted to impress a boyfriend.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:What's there to apologize for? by mi · · Score: 1

      state secrets are not a human right.

      Nothing in this topic is about "human rights". Irrelevant much?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:What's there to apologize for? by flink · · Score: 1

      Human right to free speech trumps state's desire to keep secrets.

      Human right to privacy trumps Facebook's desire to build psychological dossiers of everyone on the planet.

    7. Re:What's there to apologize for? by mi · · Score: 1

      Human right to free speech [...]

      But not CNN's right to talk about prostitutes peeing on Trump?..

      You can't pick and choose. The links I cited claim, that the First Amendment protects everybody's right to publish whatever they feel like publishing. To wit:

      The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

      The only possible exception to the above are things, one explicitly promised (such by signing an NDA, or giving an oath) not to publish... Which Facebook did not.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:What's there to apologize for? by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Because you're applying US constitutional law to EU laws? EU has a right to privacy/right to forget that is not necessarily popular or maybe even possible in the US. That said, corporations don't have the exact same set of rights as a human being does either.

    9. Re:What's there to apologize for? by mi · · Score: 1

      Because you're applying US constitutional law to EU laws?

      You referred to human rights — the kind, all human being posses regardless of where they live. Right to privacy is not among them. Nor is the Freedom of Speech, actually, but modern societies all pretend to support it...

      That said, corporations don't have the exact same set of rights as a human being does either.

      That is subject to quite a bit of a debate, actually.

      But we don't have to engage in it, because CNN, National Inquirer, New York Times, and Facebook are all corporations. So, if a media company can publish whatever it pleases, including a pictorial obtained from a paparazzi against the subject's will, then certainly Facebook can do what it wants with the information handed to it voluntarily. End of story.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:What's there to apologize for? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Whistle-blowers are afforded protection under the law (at least in theory) as an exception.

      Bradley Manning, for one, was not a "whistle blower". He just wanted to impress a boyfriend.

      Are you arguing that publicly reporting war crimes, e.g. targeting civilians, shouldn't come under whistle-blower protections based on unsupported allegations from a magazine?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    11. Re:What's there to apologize for? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The press has legal protections social media companies do not. And whataboutery is not a defense.

  11. What if you cancel your account? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming that when this change takes place, affected users will be presented with a new ToS to agree with. How does this affect those who do NOT agree with the new ToS?

    I get that they will not be able to continue using the "service", but their old data must still be protected when the GDPR goes into effect, right?

    Seems like this is the perfect opportunity for those in affected areas, who were on the fence about deleting their facebook account, to KEEP the protections that will be offered by the GDPR, and not allow their data to be exfiltrated to locations that DO NOT offer those protections. I mean, they can't move your data out of the EU jurisdiction if you don't agree with the new ToS, right?

  12. Facebook needs to DIE, DIE, DIE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Also how about we find a reason to put Zuckerberg in jail?

    Come on people haven't you all had enough? There's the phone, and email to keep in contact with people you actually care about. Isn't it time you left Facebook for good?

  13. Doesn't work that way zucky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    EU-GDPR doesn't work that way. Data privacy and protection is a human right according to the EU. Hence it also applies to anyone just traveling through the EU, all the actions taken while the subject is in the EU fall under the EU-GDPR even if they are not a EU citizen. That is the same as all the other human rights in the EU (and basically anywhere). They apply to "humans" in that area, and not only citizens.

    Source: Rushing to be compliant.

  14. Should there be state secrets? by mi · · Score: 1

    States shouldn't have secrets from their citizens.

    Not even from the citizens, who are traitors and secretly work for the state's adversaries?

    Sorry, that's like saying, if you did nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to fear from your information being disclosed...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  15. What was the intent of the EU law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that the intent of the law was to cover EU citizens, no matter where they lived on this planet and not as Facebook intends to argue, where they physically live.

  16. You knew this was coming by twebb72 · · Score: 1

    Zuck will never remove your data. Doesn't matter what regulation gets handed down

  17. FTS - "... went into effect tomorrow,..." by fygment · · Score: 1

    Wow. I would like a look at the sports section of that news service so I can place my bets more intelligently.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.