Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jritch 5355 days ago
I think there’s a few points here and although some replies have very valid points others completely stray from the issues that "Europe vs facebook" is making.

1. Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our data laws. This means that, under our European laws they MUST supply ALL information they have on people. Currently this is not being done and as such they are breaking the law by not providing ALL information they hold on people. If they want to have HQ's in Europe and want Europeans to use their service they must abide by our laws, this is regardless if we as a user decide to sign up or not. These laws cannot at anytime be waived REGARDLESS if it is indeed us as Europeans deciding to use their service.

2. Quite simply, if they offer the option of "deleting" posts/likes/mails, then they should do just that, delete it. Anything other than this and they are quite blatantly misleading users.

3. They SHOULD NOT be gathering information on ANYONE who does not use their service. This is not legal and should not be allowed to happen. The old saying "knowledge is power" comes to mind, but these "big corporations" should not be able to gather data on people who have no connection what-so-ever to their company/services. Britain recently has been rocked by such scandals as phone hack etc aswell as the big argument about Google cars collecting data from wireless networks that they were not authorised to do so from. Is facebook gather information on people who have no connection to them any different from hacking someone’s phone and listening to their messages? Or any different from a Google car passing your home and gathering information for your wireless network? My opinion is that it isnt any different. New of the world have had to pay out massive amount of compensation to the people who could prove that their phones were hacked. It is a breach of privacy and more importantly, THE LAW. Google also had to agree to delete all information gathered by its Google cars as this was deemed to be illegally collected.

Facebook should be made to adhere to our laws if they wish to be present in our countries. Thus they should be made to supply ALL information held on people who make subject access requests, they should delete all e mails/post/likes that have been deleted by the original (or any recipicants) and should also delete ALL information they have gained about people who no longer/have never used their service.

I joined facebook when it first came out as would say i was pretty young and naive, I didnt read all the agreements etc and certainly didn’t know what I was signing myself up for (alot of which has not came out until recently). If facebook want to use the argument that everyone who signs up agree to their t&c then they should respect the fact that only peoples over the age of 18 should be allowed to join in Europe. (this is currently not the case with children as young as 8 and their pet dogs having profiles)....

Facebook cant have it all their own way and must respect the laws of the land, PERIOD.

3 comments

While I agree with most of your post, I feel I MUST point out some problems with some of the analogies you are using.

1) The analogy between hacking your phone and reading messages is really NOT the same as Facebook storing data that you supplied to their system.

2) Google did nothing that should be considered illegal regardless of what European courts decided. The data they collected was on OPEN WIFI routers. This is the same as being accused of breaking the law because you listen while having a conversation in a crowded room. Open wifi comes with the implicit idea, that the owner of the router is actively allowing others to use the router.

Point taken. They are still collected data they had no right collecting.....also the people who they collected data on were not informed until the german government investigated the matter (which is a breach of the law)
"Is facebook gather information on people who have no connection to them any different from hacking someone’s phone and listening to their messages?"

Usually any communication has two parties. So, you can collect information with neither party consenting (phone hacking, wiretapping, etc.), one party consenting, or both parties consenting.

I would think that most of the information they collect would count as one party consenting, so it's a step up from phone hacking. But it's still worrying, of course, because the single consenting party often doesn't know they are consenting (whether they should know or not is a different matter).

> Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our data laws.

Why? One might argue that European laws MUST be changed. Pointing to laws is hardly a moral argument, there are tons of terrible laws and facebook might as well be a victim of one of them.

It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now. And the truth is that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be prosecuted for such.

As for your argument, why is that a terrible law? Why is it bad that users have a right to know what companies have on them? To be honest, I think it's a pretty bloody great law.

Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place, it wouldn't be in hot water.

> It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now. Depends on the discussion. I doubt anybody claims that the laws don't obligate facebook to make the data available, because they do. What people argue is that said laws are bad.

> And the truth is that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be prosecuted for such. That's what we are having an argument about. I agree that they are breaking our laws, but I don't think that they should be prosecuted. I think the laws should be changed instead, because they are bad.

> Why is it bad that users have a right to know what companies have on them? Because it isn't the state's business what customers and companies agree with each other. If facebook states in its contracts with their customers that they will make this data available then they should be prosecuted for breach of contract if they don't.

I'm against the state (or the EU or whoever) making laws that deal with private matters because lawmakers are notoriously bad at thinking things through. This leads to a bunch of unintended consequences and ultimately is bad for both customers and companies and anybody else. E.g.: copyright laws, patent laws, immigration laws, drug laws etc...

Actually, they aren't bad at thinking things through, it is impossible to think things through. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1...

> Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place, it wouldn't be in hot water.

I don't want to defend facebook. Maybe what they do is bad, I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, I really don't know. What I'm saying is: Even if what they are doing IS bad, then the state still shouldn't intervene if they don't breach the contracts with their customers. Facebook doesn't force you to use their services, and if you do so voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms, though luck.

> Facebook doesn't force you to use their services, and if you do so voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms, though luck.

WRONG! Think about all the sites that have Like buttons. Facebook never showed me a form or a checkbox to use that, did they? Yet they're gathering information on the sites I go to and setting up "shadow profiles" (as europe-v-facebook put them).

You're right, Facebook doesn't make me use Facebook -- they're trying to force me to.

And sure, I can just use hosts to block the Facebook site, but I shouldn't have to do that just to stop them from tracking me.

Why would a country change their laws to suit a company? (not even from Europe)? When Europeans go to america do they not have to follow the laws of that land?

As a European I feel that I should have access to any information a company holds on me.....both MORALLY and legally...

As a European I don't feel this way. Unless you have a contract with a company that states you such rights, that is...

If you give up information voluntarily (even if you aren't aware of it) why should it obligate anybody who collects it to spend resources on informing you what they know about you? Morally, why does gathering information imply obligation to provide certain information? This is a total non-sequitur.

The reason this should be done as it is the law, pure and simple. I, by law, have the right to know what information/data a company holds on me. If they wish to collect data in the first place, and are a reputable company, they should be well aware of the "obligations" they have before then even start collecting it.......Why do they want my information? What do they plan on doing with it? Could it then end up in the hands of anyone who could do with it as they please?

Much the same way i wouldnt want to be contacted/emailed/telephoned/written to by companies i have in no way solicited to contact me....