Meta’s threat to close down Facebook and Instagram in Europe backfires as EU leaders

[enjay]

On the other hand, if you're that concerned with the processing of your data there's always the personal choice NOT to use Facebook et al.

 

That was my point. My data, my choice. If I want to use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Portal, see targeted adverts, and in so doing have my data processed overseas where it is potentially available to the FBI, I should be allowed make that choice. I'm unclear why it comes down to Government telling Meta they can't process data I voluntarily give them.

[tg12]

On the other hand, if you're that concerned with the processing of your data there's always the personal choice NOT to use Facebook et al.

The problem is with Facebook's modus operandi is, even if you don't actively use Facebook, they're still gathering data on you and building a profile on you as you browse the internet. Their tracking tools are built into so many sites these days.

[enjay]

Sure - but Facebook today, your bank tomorrow, and the NHS the day after? We ALL need protection against rapacious business, even if we don't realize it.

 

Not the same thing, though. I don't have a choice over my medical records so that is where the Government have a responsibility to ensure the data is treated appropriately. I choose to use Facebook, I choose who I bank with, and if I don't like what they do with my data I can use another service.

[Theblacksheep]

I choose to use Facebook, I choose who I bank with, and if I don't like what they do with my data I can use another service.

 

You cant use a US bank or buy US shares, without adhering to US law. You cannot use certain crypto sites in the UK, just because you want to. Facebooks right to operate in a country, is ultimately down to the laws of the country, not the individual.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Theblacksheep

[jthompson]

I think it's reasonable for governments to take a role in this. After all, things like TV advertising are regulated to protect consumers, even though watching TV is a voluntary thing. The reality is that most people on Facebook are going to be using the service at face value, and not pondering the ins and outs of data protection implications of having data stored and processed overseas. That's perfectly reasonable, and it's reasonable also for them to expect governments to be taking care of the consumer protection side of things, at least to some degree.

[Garacesh]

That was my point. My data, my choice. If I want to use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Portal, see targeted adverts, and in so doing have my data processed overseas where it is potentially available to the FBI, I should be allowed make that choice. I'm unclear why it comes down to Government telling Meta they can't process data I voluntarily give them.

 

Well for one, a lot of the data isn't voluntarily given.

If I go on Amazon and search for, oh I dunno, let's say a new washing machine, my intention is clearly to let Amazon to know I'm looking for a washing machine.

Suddenly I'm seeing facebook ads for washing machine repair, recycling services, and AO/Curry's/John Lewis etc. Where did they come from?*

* Rhetorical, we all know how it works, I'm just talking as an average user

 

Now the argument about usefulness vs invasive is a different issue. Personally I fall on the 'invasive' side.

 

Secondly, if that's what you want, you still can opt in to all the tracking stuff now. That's the entire point of the consent popups. You're free to just click accept all and go about your business.

But the rest of us that don't want that get to say "Er, actually, nah mate."

 

Anyway, it's all irrelevant. GDPR isn't stopping Meta from raking in the cash. Fine it's less cash than in America. But it's still a lot of cash. It's still incredibly profitable to run in the EU, so they're going to keep doing it.

[msi_school]

Facebook had a dispute with the Australian government and for around a week they blocked all news articles on Facebook in Australia. Then they backed down...

 

The EU is great for overcoming plays like this from multi national companies because the national politicians can use the European ones as cover whilst secretly supporting them.

[Katy]

I don't see why, assuming they have European data centres, they need to do the processing in the US unless the level of data slurp is illegal if performed in the EU.

[Andrew_C]

the level of data slurp is illegal if performed in the EU.

[sarc] that couldn't possibly be it could it? [/sarc]

[GrumbleDook]

I don't see why, assuming they have European data centres, they need to do the processing in the US unless the level of data slurp is illegal if performed in the EU.

 

Even with UK data centres, whilst the company processing your data remains a US company then there are law enforcement grabs of data that can be made, so that international transfers are still a risk.

To be honest, there are already mechanisms that international law enforcement agencies can make requests via the countries within which the data is processed, but that means it *has* to follow the laws of that land, not the US.

That is the problem. It makes life easier for US firms to have the data in the US as it saves grief with LEAs.

 

For many of us in schools, or working with schools, the risks of law enforcement agencies grabbing children's data is going to be small, but where the services are for social media, banking, etc. ... well there are real risks associated with it.