back to article Ireland unfriends Facebook: Oh Zucky Boy, the pipes, the pipes are closing…from glen to US, and through the EU-side

Facebook has been reportedly asked to stop sending data from Ireland to the US, on orders from the EU. This is according to a report from the Wall Street Journal, which said that Irish eyes won't be smiling come this Fall after a preliminary order to suspend data transfers to the US about its users was sent to Mark Zuckerberg' …

  1. Wolfclaw

    Facebook aren't stupid while the EU probably is, it's not he transfer of data in question, as it is probably as secure as it can get, its when it gets stored on US Of A$$ servers is when your data becomes a free for all slurpfest and good luck getting EU laws upheld

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Any chance you've misunderstood the article? Specifically, where FB's spokesman is quoted: there's a total lack (or rather unwillingness or neglect) of understanding EU's data protection regulation on the side of FB.

      1. Woodnag

        FB are pretending FISA 702 don't apply to them. It's called lying

        EU data cannot be stored in US servers due to GDPR if the US gov can access it without any due process under 50 USC §1881a (FISA 702). Which is true for FB. So SCCs can't be used in this case either, because, again, the US gov can access it freely regardless.

        https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps-users-faqs

        1. Woodnag

          Ireland DPC

          It's also interesting that the R. of I.'s DPC has been working closely with FB to avoid enforcing GDPR on FB. Even after this second judgement. Lots of detail on https://noyb.eu/en

          Here's the letter from NOYB to Irish DPC after the DPC's recent prevarication:

          https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2020-09/Letter%20to%20DPC_bk.pdf

        2. JCitizen Bronze badge

          Re: FB are pretending FISA 702 don't apply to them. It's called lying

          I'm more worried about Google than FB; and I have one eye on the way MS has starting acting like Google too. However FB needs security settings that are tailored to EU rules so the individuals can select them, and it should be simple to do and transparent. For those that refuse to set privacy levels on FB, then who cares what happens to their data - they sure don't!

          I also believe that FB should allow all users to set up under EU guide lines; that way if users feel they are getting better protection that way, then they can get it. I see no reason why FB couldn't still make enough money off their site that way. I see more ads than ever before they way they have it set up now. I've noticed they aren't as cagey as Google/AWS though - those two get deep in your knickers!

  2. ColinPa

    is remote access allowed?

    If the data was to stay in Ireland, does this prevent people accessing it from the US? It there is a web server in Ireland with access to the data, can someone in the US use a URL which points to that server?

    1. Thomas PinkOne

      Re: is remote access allowed?

      Even if a Facebook staffer in Eire copies the details from a screen, and then whistles them in morse code down a transatlantic speaking tube, it's still transfer of data. The law is about data, not technology

    2. LDS Silver badge
      Devil

      "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

      Oh well, under the CLOUD Act a US judge can still ask access to those data.

      The main difference if for Facebook itself. As long as the data are in EU, it's far easier for EU to enforce its rules like GDPR. When data are transferred outside, it would become much more difficult.

      Data "published" by the users themselves for other to see can be obviously accessed.

      1. UCAP

        Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

        But Facebook would still not be allowed to transfer the data across the pond regardless of a US judges orders. At that point they are really in a cleft stickof their own making.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          "regardless of a US judges orders"

          Technically, the GDPR has exceptions for data access under lawful investigations - the problem is the CLOUD Act may not be a lawful investigation under the EU country law... and Zuckerberg would have to stand a judge order to obtain the data....

      2. et tu, brute?

        Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

        Saying "data are" just looks wrong to me... For me it will always be "data is"!

        1. Tim99 Silver badge

          Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

          Datum...

          1. et tu, brute?
            Happy

            Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

            http://purl.org/nxg/note/singular-data

            Bit of a read, but do yourself a favour and read it all...

            Best argument is that you won't ask "How many data do you have?" (indicating plural) but you would ask "How much data do you have?" (indicating singular, i.e. a collective)

            And let the down-votes roll in...

            1. T. F. M. Reader

              Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

              do yourself a favour and read it all

              I did. I don't know who the author of that blog post is or whether he (is Norman the name?) is a world-renowned authority on linguistics, but I find many of the arguments there unconvincing. No downvotes for you, though - thanks for the link, even as I disagree with it.

              It seems to me that the writer has his mind set on the non-scientific and non-technical use of the word data as generic "information" (mass singular noun - by the way, his usage of "massive singular" makes me doubt he is a linguistics expert). He is very far from thinking in terms of discrete measurements or data points - contexts where the notion of datum as singular and data as plural are common and standard. That's the only charitable explanation of "there's no such thing as 'datum'" and other unsupported statements that I can offer.

              Maybe I am biased by my Ph.D. thesis on intergalactic medium, but to me that mass singular noun is further from the contemporary use of the corresponding plural in expressions like "mass media" or 'mainstream media" or "print media" than "datum" (that naturally corresponds to a data point, a result of measurement or observation) is from "data". It is natural to me to say or write "data were collected" in an academic paper or a technical report, but I won't be put off by a mainstream media article where a journalist will write "a lot of data was collected" - for the journalist this is equivalent to "a lot of information became available", only a bit more scientific-looking. The journalist or his readership won't care about individual recorded measurements, but the audience of a technical publication or document will. Members of the Commentariat often do, I suspect.

              Major dictionaries (that should be regarded as sources of expert opinion on language), including Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster, disagree with the blogger on all major counts. They all have entries for datum, they all list data as plural for datum, and they all say that both plural and mass singular usage of data are common and standard.

              The Oxford's Lexico page (see link above) makes the same distinction between scientific and non-scientific use of data and I did above, while Merriam-Webster (again, see the link above) makes another relevant point:

              "The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it."

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

              As the Guardian's style guide says:

              You come across datum, the singular of data, about as often as you hear about an agendum.

              1. Tim99 Silver badge

                Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

                I know I'm an old fart when someone reminds me that I have written "agendum" when I was the Board Secretary for a charity - I referred to a singular item on the agenda - Yes, I'm the one who started the datum thread...

              2. the Jim bloke Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

                I work in an industry where "datum" is in common and regular use, whereas the Guardian and its style guide is about as relevant as pre-Assyrian religious practices.

                The problem with the internet is that it expands the reach and influence of stupid people.

        2. dancecat

          Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

          For me, “datums be” looks the most right

          1. Thomas PinkOne

            Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

            da-tum da-tum da-tum da-tum da-da-da-dee-da da-tum

        3. This post has been deleted by its author

        4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

          As The Economist's style guide says: "data are plural"

          1. Danny 2 Silver badge

            Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

            On Star Trek Next Generation Data was a singular individual - should he have been called Commander Datum?

            1. Toni the terrible

              Re: "does this prevent people accessing it from the US? "

              Yay! Horray for Commander Datum! nicknamed Data

    3. Strahd Ivarius Bronze badge

      Re: is remote access allowed?

      As long as Facebook is a US based company it is compelled under the CLOUD act to give access to any data it controls.

      The location of the data is irrelevant.

      To comply with the GDPR, US companies should be subsidiaries of a company legally based outside of the USA that has another subsidiary managing European users data.

      1. Bbuckley

        Re: is remote access allowed?

        Nope if it could (will) be fined 4% of global revenue by the EU if it gives EU citizen data to the US CLOUD act or no CLOUD act. This is a War.

    4. Bbuckley

      Re: is remote access allowed?

      The point though is if they do that and it is discovered they did that then the EU can fine FB 4% of global revenues ...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OT - "Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg"

    My, how the mighty have fall... Hang on, that Nick Clegg? Really?

    My, how the bloody useless have risen!

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re: OT - "Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg"

      Holy ****! And I thought you were joking.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OT - "Facebook spokesman Nick Clegg"

        All that hard-won experience as "fag"* to the Bullingdon Bois made him a

        shoe-in for the UK Face of Facebook. And he wasn't going to get another

        job in politics after the Lib Demarrhoid fiasco.

        * Fag as in Tom Brown's Schooldays, not the US term!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    About time too

    Well done EU. Too bad that we have left the club. ZuckFart will make hay here. Cleggy knows who to call to keep the LAw off their backs.

    If you are in the UK and not on FB then you will be soon because BoJO will make it law.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: About time too

      If you aren't on FB then you are anyway, just by association with other people, and their contact lists, by visits to virtually any website....

      You're there, they know who you are and what you had for supper.

      1. tiggity Silver badge

        Re: About time too

        That assumes you socialise with people on FB ....

        None of my close friends on FB.

        I know people who are, difficult to avoid knowing some FB users with high levels of FB usage around, but the FB users are more distant friends who do not know minutiae of my life (none of the FB users even know where I live as people I only meet meet socially, outside the home) - and with COVID restrictions the FB users know nothing about what I have been doing the last few months as been unable to meet with them).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: About time too

          Excellent post.. I'm going to link to it on my facebook page :-)

        2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: About time too

          I was particularly annoyed when the umbrella company I use outsourced the authentication of their web portal to Facebook.

          What this means is that I have another Facebook account (besides the bare account I keep to allow me to access services from companies that think FB is the only way to interact with their customers on the Internet) that I know very little about. I don't know exactly what is stored under it. I'm also a little uncertain about how outsourcing the authentication to a third party actually fits in to GPDR, and I don't remember explicitly agreeing to have the data transferred to FB, and I normally read the T&Cs (difficult when they're so long and boring) when I'm asked to. Maybe I should put a data protection request in to see.

          1. iron Silver badge

            Re: About time too

            Companies who think Facebook is the only way to interact with their customers on the Internet do not recieve my business. I do not open accounts on sites that insist on Facebook login and I close them if a site announces they will change to Facebook login (or I would if it happened, never seen it so far).

            Undoubtedly Facebook have the usual shadow profile for me but there isn't much you can do about that apart from block their cookies, tracking code and "like" tracking buttons, which I have always done.

            1. AK565

              Re: About time too

              At this point I don't think I actively refuse to engage with entities that insist on FB log-in. I suspect I just ignore them without the FB log-in consciously registering as the reason.

              Mozilla have come out with a FB "bucket" that supposedly markedly reduces the amount of data FB can slurp without your permission. I haven't had the chance to check it out but wonder if there's any truth to the claim.

          2. Outski

            Re: About time too

            It may be time to consider a new umbrella company, if they think that's acceptable behaviour

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: About time too

              It may be is time

              FTFY

              Back in the day my preference was for my own company rather than a brolly. A brolly is somebody else's company. Does that remind me of anything?

              1. Outski

                Re: About time too

                When I was contracting back in 2014 (how TF does 2014 now merit a 'back in', FFS?), I went with an umbrella rather than my own, because I neededverified income statements for MrsO's visa application, and for self-employed, that required 18 months of accounts. I wasn't prepared to wait that long.

              2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

                Re: About time too @Doctor Syntax

                I'm a good IT contractor. I'm a lousy company administrator and director, as was proved by the 10+ years of trying and getting fined regularly by the Revenue and previously Customs for filing my returns late (I know, you can now find big panel accountants who will do most of the work, but that hasn't always been the case).

                But around 10 years ago, I found that I could forego the marginal tax and NI savings (I was actually opposed to tax avoidance measures anyway, which is why my accountants didn't like me), and found it was just easier to be the employee of an umbrella. I'm a cop-out contractor, I know. My decision.

                And now, with IR35 looming again, I'm smiling inwardly at the predicament of all of the contractors I know whose anxiety is ramping up again pending next April. I've already seen many friends leave contracts that they could have extended because they're so worried about what the Revenue will do, and the way that the IR35 change was crassly delayed last March was a joke.

          3. Woodnag

            Re: About time too

            This fails GPDR. You can get your country's DPC to force them to move.

          4. Jamie Jones Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: About time too

            Can't you buy your umbrellas elsewhere?

      2. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: About time too

        Creating third party personal profiles from the data trawled from existing account holders is illegal under GDPR unless I've misunderstood some of the 'allowed' reasons for holding information.

        On the other hand, generating a detailed profile from the slurped contact list as soon as an account is created can be completed before the newby user has finished filling in actual details.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: About time too

          >None of my close friends on FB.

          Ah-ah I don't have any friends so I win

          1. Mark Exclamation

            Re: About time too

            I do. They're all dogs (and before someone tries to be funny, they're canines). And they have FB accounts. Oops.

      3. Toni the terrible

        Re: About time too

        No they don't even I don't know what I have had for supper.....

  5. Fading Silver badge
    Windows

    Shocked I tell thee...

    How shocked was I that the Irish Data Protection Commission actually did something (must be from their new fancy offices https://www.thejournal.ie/data-protection-commissioner-new-office-1488473-May2014 ) .....

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Shocked I tell thee...

      No the Eu ordered it, whether the Irish DPA ever get round to enforcing it ....

  6. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Sell FB (Europe)?

    In the same way as POTUS wants TicTok's US operation to be sold to a US company, perhaps Facebook can be invited to divest itself from the European operation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sell FB (Europe)?

      photoalbum?

  7. IGotOut Silver badge

    Contract Clauses.

    Dear Facebook.

    Contracts cannot override the law. Consumer ones are even more meaningless.

    The End.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Contract Clauses.

      There's the problem. EU and US law both want to override them.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I sometimes wonder if the "solution" for companies like Facebook/Google/etc wrt EU regulation would be for them to announce that as they have no desire to breach EU law then they will be temporarily be suspend all access from the EU while they review their ability to work in the EU "under the current regulations" ... I'm sure that after a few days (probably more likely hours or minutes) of the general population being deprived of their bread and circuses FB/IG/WhatsApp/etc fixes there'd be huge demands for politicians to "sort it out so we get our FB back". (Note that I as a long time FB-refusenik would care)

    1. theOtherJT

      I really hope that actually happens. I'd enjoy the few days of peace where I don't have to check the thing in case someone has decided that for some reason it's better to message me through that abomination than just fucking call or text me and ask if I want to get a beer tonight.

      I really want rid of the thing, but it's almost the only way a large number of people I know chose to communicate for some reason.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        "a large number of people I USED to know chose to communicate for some reason."

        If people are not willing to respect my feelings about FB, I am not willing to respect theirs.

        Facebook, Twitter, Instagram can all feck off and I will carry on happily being a miserable bastard.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "I will carry on happily being a miserable bastard"

          So will I. I'm happier that way.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "I really want rid of the thing, but it's almost the only way a large number of people I know chose to communicate for some reason."

        Just do it. Tell your "friends" our phone number and/or email address as you prefer. That way you find out who your friends rally are and those who aren't can be dumped along with FB.

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      @AC

      It worked with google news and a couple of EU countries who tried to make google pay the news providers. Situation going back to before when the news sites rapidly lost viewings.

      There seems to be a lot of entitlement and assumption that these things dont contribute.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: @AC

        "It worked with google news and a couple of EU countries who tried to make google pay the news providers. Situation going back to before when the news sites rapidly lost viewings."

        That was a deliberate policy of de-listing by Google et al to make a point and try to stop a precedent being set. It was blackmail by Google et al. "Nice news site you have there. It'd be a shame if no one could find it"

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @AC

          @John Brown (no body)

          "That was a deliberate policy of de-listing by Google et al to make a point and try to stop a precedent being set"

          Yes. Google did the right thing. Web crawlers read the robots.txt to read the instructions of where to index. The news providers got greedy and made demands of payment while also expecting google to shove readers their way. Google was in the right.

          "It was blackmail by Google et al"

          Kind of. If it is blackmail for Google to only provide its service to those who want it.

    3. Len Silver badge
      Happy

      The problem is that that is not a very attractive proposition for those companies. Europe is easily the largest wealthy market in the world. Quite a few US tech firms make more money in Europe than in their domestic market. Even the poorest country in the EU has a considerably higher average salary than China. Blocking European users would have tremendous implications for their revenues.

      On top of that they run the risk (just like blocking the use of Android by Huawei) that it could form the catalyst for a European homegrown alternative to make inroads. Facebook is big and unavoidable but so was MySpace until they went from insurmountable to irrelevant within perhaps 18 months.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The Europe market sounds cool. Wouldn't it be good if the European countries got together as a trade group to take on the world.. I'm sure no Brit would be so stupid as to turn down that opportunity!

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          @AC

          "Wouldn't it be good if the European countries got together as a trade group to take on the world"

          Its a good idea but the creeping desire to conquer Europe under one stupidity keeps showing up. They just cant stop at a trade block.

      2. mhenriday
        Boffin

        Not so

        Compare average wages in China to those in e g, Bulgaria....

        Henri

    4. AK565

      Frankly, I'm curious as to how so many people have the discretionary time and energy to spend on FB. Since Covid19 hit 90% of my time has been spent on keeping afloat financially. It literally took until a few hour's ago to sort that all out. I anticipate having some discretionary time in the very near future and I'll certainly not be spending it on FB.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AK565

        It depends on what you do.

        A significant number of people have been twiddling their thumbs (with the proviso of educating/entertaining their kids) on paid furlough in the UK over the last 5 months. These people are fortunate to have had much of this time to do what they wanted.

        I'm actually quite jealous of these people in some ways. I've been stuck at home struggling to find ways to do my work remotely, working on a cramped desk with much poorer access to the systems I support, for the same hours as I did when I was actually at work. And all the time, finding that the family demands on my time have increased because I'm actually more available to them. Swings and roundabouts, I know, but being home all the time has had it's drawbacks.

        I sympathize with people who cannot work from home and are not eligible for the income supporting measures rolled out by the governments. There have been huge cracks in the system, particularly for the recently self-employed (I would have been there if where I work had decided I was not essential to keep me working), but there are people who have come out of this quite well, at least as far as spare time is concerned.

  9. big_D Silver badge

    SCCs

    While last July's ruling did not strike down the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) used as opt-outs by many companies, it seems likely that will come under the gaze of the courts before long.

    As SCCs work on the same basis as Privacy Shield - the promise not to hand the data over to third parties, including the government, without a valid warrant (i.e. no FISA, Patriot Act or NSA letter interference), I don't see how SCCs have a leg to stand on.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: SCCs

      "I don't see how SCCs have a leg to stand on"

      Neither did the EU. Somebody really needs to tell Nick. Actually I'm sure he knows, it's just that his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: SCCs

        >without a valid warrant (i.e. no FISA, Patriot Act or NSA letter interference),

        Until the men in suits with dark glasses tell you that the super security act letter is a valid warrant.

        Since you have total trust in your own governments legality and the supreme court and attorney-general you believe them and hand over the data.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: SCCs

          Which is exactly why the SCCs do not meet the Privacy Figleaf's requirements. Despite the Irish ICO's foot-dragging they're reluctantly being obliged, as the article tells us, to make some initial moves to enforcing GDPR.

        2. big_D Silver badge

          Re: SCCs

          It wasn't issued in the EU, so it isn't a valid warrant.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: SCCs

            It's a valid warrant in the US. That makes it impossible for US-based FB to be able to perform the SCCs. That makes the SCCs worthless in the EU. If they want to comply with GDPR they need to ensure any PII is held securely outside the grasp or the USl. If they don't want to do that then it's time to start fining them. Actions speak louder than words; no amount of waffle about how much they want to makes any difference at al

            1. big_D Silver badge

              Re: SCCs

              Which is the whole point, the US agreed to enforce the EU regulations, including the warrant situation, but they have done diddly squat, so it isn't really a surprise. The surprise if Facebook moaning at the EU and the Irish DPO and not the US Government and Trump.

    2. Woodnag

      SCCs for some transfers

      For your bank transactions, SCCs work fine, because banks aren't subject to FISA 702 data hoovering. FB is subject to FISA 702 data hoovering, so SCC is meaningless (doesn't protect), so can't be used.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: SCCs for some transfers

        Banks would still be subject to National Security Letters. That makes SCCs unenforceable of the bank is within the US's legal grasp. It's not the type of business that matters, it's the overall legal system.

        1. Woodnag

          NSLs

          Nope. Nothing to do with NSLs, because they are an individualised legal warrant. Abused, sure...

          From https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps-users-faqs :

          ...companies that fall under a US “mass surveillance” law can no longer use the SCCs . This is because the SCCs cannot override US law.

          Transfers to US companies that fall under a US “mass surveillance” law like FISA 702 (also called 50 USC §1881a) are usually illegal. The companies that cannot rely on them are the so-called “electronic communication service providers”. This is a broad term under US law and covers most IT and cloud providers.

          Examples of these providers include AT&T, Amazon (AWS), Apple, Cloudflare, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Verizon Media (known as Oath & Yahoo) or Verizon. The links of each of the companies will take you to their transparency reports that tell you how often they were subject to US government data access requests.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: NSLs

            "Nope. Nothing to do with NSLs, because they are an individualised legal warrant."

            Can EU data subjects challenge NSLs in US courts (a low enough bar IMV; they ought to be able to challenge in the data subject's jurisdiction)? That's the test.

  10. A random security guy Bronze badge

    Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

    Sigh. Wishing. We still have CCPA here in California but till now I haven’t seen it being used.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

      @A random security guy

      "Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?"

      Not really. There is a reason the EU is an attempt to create a federalised system, and their GPS desires, and their EU military dreams, and their envy that the US can make globally successful tech companies.

      The US shouldnt try to become what the copycat is. Better to be the VW golf than something that tries to be (VW golf advert in the UK).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

        Haha, nice impression of a paranoid irrational EU hater!

        Don't say that sort of thing in public though.. People may think that you are serious!

      2. DF118

        Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

        I do love it when foam-mouthed Brexiters throw up that "EU armed forces" bollocks.

        Even if it did happen I'd have welcomed it. Not because it'd be any less infested with corrupt, venal arms dealers than the UK has now, but because it'd at least give our home grown shysters, tax vampires, pocket-dwelling politicians and regime-enablers a good hard poke right up the jacksie.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

          @DF118

          "I do love it when foam-mouthed Brexiters throw up that "EU armed forces" bollocks."

          Oh no. Please dont tell me your one of those people who support the EU but havnt a clue? At what point do you think it is bollocks? You didnt miss them trying to explain it would be to complement NATO instead of a replacement while Trump was trying to get Europe to pay for some of its security?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

            You must be a troll. Why else would you be so brazen as to accuse *remainers* of not having a clue about how the EU works?!

            Why are you so scared of an EU army? That's the bollocks being talked about.

            Even when we were in the EU, there would have been no requirement to join in. We've always had 100% control of our armed forces. There was never anything the EU could do to make us join such an army, or alter our armed services in any way.

            Anyway, with NATO on dodgy ground, it may be a good idea - better than loads of small individual forces.

            Why are you so scared of an EU army? Surely you don't believe the bollocks about it printed in the tabloids?

            By the way, as someone so scared, you should have wanted to remain within the EU. Now there will be nothing stopping those pesky foreigners from coming here and stealing our cheddar!

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

              @AC

              "You must be a troll. Why else would you be so brazen as to accuse *remainers* of not having a clue about how the EU works?!"

              I didnt. I asked if he is one of those remainers who doesnt have a clue. Not having a clue being a subset of the group not a general statement of remainers. And thats why I asked which bit about an EU army he considered bollocks. Because some people dont seem to realise the EU is and has been strongly considering creating it.

              "Why are you so scared of an EU army? That's the bollocks being talked about."

              Are you DF118? If so why the AC? Of not then who are you to tell me what he thinks? Hopefully he does know of the EU's desire to make an army and considers something specific to be bollocks. But until he explains what he thinks is bollocks I can only assume the usual 'the EU army idea isnt real'.

              "Even when we were in the EU, there would have been no requirement to join in. We've always had 100% control of our armed forces."

              I didnt even think we would. It would be our money funding it as one of the few net contributors.

              "Anyway, with NATO on dodgy ground, it may be a good idea - better than loads of small individual forces."

              And that is just wrong. NATO isnt an army, its an agreement that an attack on one is an attack on all. Who will the EU army be loyal to? How will it be directed (majority member votes? With veto?)? What happens when the army has to be deployed against a member country or if member countries disagree with a course of action?

              Things get much more complicated when its an actual army instead of a joint defensive agreement.

              "By the way, as someone so scared, you should have wanted to remain within the EU. Now there will be nothing stopping those pesky foreigners from coming here and stealing our cheddar!"

              You mention scared a few times. Not sure why. Thinking its a dumb idea is different to being scared. As I already mentioned, a lot of these European countries struggle to meet NATO spending on their forces. Now they want to make another money hole.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wouldn’t it be better if the US adopted GDPR?

      I think that would be a good idea. It would also make things easier if the laws were the same / compatible.

      I don't think the lobbyists would allow it though.

  11. msknight

    Ummm...

    "Facebook has been working hard to follow the steps set out by the Court to ensure that we can continue to transfer data in a safe and secure way,""

    From what I read... it isn't down to the safety and security of the data they're transfering... it's the fact that they're transferring it in the first place.

    ... at least, that's how I read it.

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Ummm...

      I think you've misunderstood what he's saying (or perhaps Clegg has inadvertently said what he means) - they aren't worried about the safety of the data being transferred, they are worried about the safety of their money whilst they transfer data. "we're going to keep transferring data, and we're working on legal arguments so we can't be fined for doing so".

  12. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Windows

    "Facebook has been working hard"

    Somehow, that sentence does not sound credible. The only thing FaceBook works hard at is hoovering every snippet of data it can about anybody who is so much as mentioned on its pages.

    For the rest, FaceBook has lawyers who's only job is to pretend to care about user privacy to make things look good in the public eye.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: "Facebook has been working hard"

      "The only thing FaceBook works hard at is hoovering every snippet of data it can"

      And money. Don't forget the money.

      1. Psmo Silver badge
        Terminator

        Re: "Facebook has been working hard"

        For Google and Facebook, they gather the data first, then discover whether it is profitable.

        1. Falmari

          Re: "Facebook has been working hard"

          For Google and Facebook, they gather the data first, then discover whether it is legal.

    2. hoola Bronze badge

      Re: "Facebook has been working hard"

      The only thing they will be working hard at is their lawyers trying to find ways around it. They are a despicable company with no moral, social or legal responsibility. If they can fix a problem with money, they will.

  13. fidodogbreath Silver badge

    ensuring that we have robust safeguards in place, such as industry standard encryption and security measures

    That's fine for protecting data from hackers. The only ways to protect your data from Facebook itself and its advertising customers are (a) don't use FB, and (b) run ad blockers on all devices to filter out all FB-related cookies and domains.

  14. MarkSitkowski

    Why is this different...?

    "Like many other businesses, Facebook relies on SCCs to transfer data to countries outside the EU, including to the United States..."

    For 'EU' read 'United States' and for 'United States', read 'China'.

    Am I missing something, or shouldn't Trump be calling this 'spying'?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Facebook eh

    If you lie down with dogs...

  16. MarkAlmada

    El Reg,

    That has to be up there as the best pun. Well done

  17. Ashto5

    Makes No Difference

    FB google etc will find a away to keep eating the data

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020