Google moving the data of its UK users to avoid strict EU privacy laws

[M76]

Google is not wasting any time to reap the benefits of the UK exiting the EU. They are planning to move the data of their UK users out from their EU HQ in Ireland (which remains a part of EU) to US juridistiction so they don't have to obey stritct privacy protection laws of the EU (such as GDPR) for UK users.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lose-eu-data-protection-sources-idUSKBN20D2M3

The shift, prompted by Britain's exit from the EU, will leave the sensitive personal information of tens of millions with less protection and within easier reach of British law enforcement. The change was described to Reuters by three people familiar with its plans. Google intends to require its British users to acknowledge new terms of service including the new jurisdiction.

 

[lcpiper]

Google is not wasting any time to reap the benefits of the UK exiting the EU. They are planning to move the data of their UK users out from their EU HQ in Ireland (which remains a part of EU) to US juridistiction so they don't have to obey stritct privacy protection laws of the EU (such as GDPR) for UK users.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lose-eu-data-protection-sources-idUSKBN20D2M3

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I suppose another is that any services that are not functional for EU customers will now be available to UK users.

 

[M76]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I suppose another is that any services that are not functional for EU customers will now be available to UK users.

What's that?

 

[Delicieuxz]

California has data privacy rules even more strict than GDPR. And I think the people behind California's rules want to push for them to be adopted in the US nationwide. Hopefully there will eventually be no place for companies to flee with people's data to while aiming to avoid privacy and data rights.

 

[dgz]

California has data privacy rules even more strict than GDPR. And I think the people behind California's rules want to push for them to be adopted in the US nationwide. Hopefully there will eventually be no place for companies to flee with people's data to while aiming to avoid privacy and data rights.

GDPR was too little, too late. Unfortunately, that's not what the general population seem to think. In fact, almost no one cares about anyone's data protection. The first year was crazy as only the biggest organization seemed to be trying. Smaller players were acting as if nothing had changed.

But let's get to the people. They...., they don't care. And maybe they're right. If you're carrying a smartphone with an internet connection anywhere with you, then you're part of the problem.

 

[Nebell]

I suppose another is that any services that are not functional for EU customers will now be available to UK users.

Yeah, I too want to know, which services are not functional for EU customers?

 

[Meeho]

Yeah, I too want to know, which services are not functional for EU customers?

Not sure about services, but some websites aren't accessible.

 

[Inacurate]

Hopefully there will eventually be no place for companies to flee with people's data to while aiming to avoid privacy and data rights.

The real issue is that laws seem to be written with corporations in mind, even though at face value it is pro consumers.

An easy solution to your specific statement? Make it so that the law applies to where the user is located/data is generated, not stored.

UK data should fall under UK jurisdictions, period.

This could conceivably create other issues, I'm no expert, but it just further shows how politicians across the globe listen to these companies and lobbyists and don't have citizens long-term best interest in mind.

 

[almalino]

GDPR was too little, too late. Unfortunately, that's not what the general population seem to think. In fact, almost no one cares about anyone's data protection. The first year was crazy as only the biggest organization seemed to be trying. Smaller players were acting as if nothing had changed.

We are small organization and we spent considerable effort to bring all our services to comply to GDPR. Our customers did that as well. The GDPR fines are too big for small organizations so I guess other small companies reacted as well.

 

[sunruh]

yes 2million euros or 2% which ever is GREATER

 

[lcpiper]

The real issue is that laws seem to be written with corporations in mind, even though at face value it is pro consumers.

An easy solution to your specific statement? Make it so that the law applies to where the user is located/data is generated, not stored.

UK data should fall under UK jurisdictions, period.

This could conceivably create other issues, I'm no expert, but it just further shows how politicians across the globe listen to these companies and lobbyists and don't have citizens long-term best interest in mind.

Wait wait wait, let's try a little critical thinking here. And I am replying to your post for this, but I'm not picking on you personally, it's just that I logged in, got to your post, and this is as good a place as any to interject.

1st, I think it's entirely reasonable that as the UK exits the EU, that Google would move the data to a location outside of the EU as their controls are going to be different. This is just part of customer service and data-owner rights. Right now, American Outdoors Outfitters, the parent company for Smith and Wesson firearms, is in the process of spinning off S&W for several reasons. When that happens wouldn't you think it normal for S&W to relocate their data out of their old owner's grasp and into their own control? And if the data was hosted as a service by Amazon Web Services, wouldn't it be smart of AWS to bring this to S&W's attention with recommendations?

It's entirely possible that Google will benefit from this is one or more ways, but I think it's overly myopic to look at everything through a single colored lens. Life just isn't that simple.


2nd, I think laws seem to be written by idiots and corporations are all too good at turning sour grapes to wine. All you have to do is look at the quality and motivations behind government workers and corporate staff.

 

[Joust]

People don't really care. I think these policies rank somewhere around the concerns of, "What should I have for dinner...tomorrow" and "I probably should get a mani pedi sometime."

 

[Jagger100]

The Trains running on time is a good thing. Tyrants can make the trains run on time. Does that mean having a Tyrant is a good thing?

 

[lcpiper]

The Trains running on time is a good thing. Tyrants can make the trains run on time. Does that mean having a Tyrant is a good thing?

Hmmm, as long as he likes you they're great. You just don't want to be the other guy, the one he doesn't like.

 

[5150Joker]

California has data privacy rules even more strict than GDPR. And I think the people behind California's rules want to push for them to be adopted in the US nationwide. Hopefully there will eventually be no place for companies to flee with people's data to while aiming to avoid privacy and data rights.

I've used Californias consumer privacy act already against a scummy data collection company and it worked. The rest of the US should hope their states also adopt it because it's great.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I've used Californias consumer privacy act already against a scummy data collection company and it worked. The rest of the US should hope their states also adopt it because it's great.

How did you use the CCPA against a data-harvesting company?

BTW, the group being the CCPA, Californians for Consumer Privacy, is looking to expand CCPA's protections with the CPREA.

 

[idiomatic]

The UK is 50/50 going to make google liable for hate speech stored on their servers in the UK, so perhaps not the most awesome move.

 

[5150Joker]

How did you use the CCPA against a data-harvesting company?

BTW, the group being the CCPA, Californians for Consumer Privacy, is looking to expand CCPA's protections with the CPREA.

Without going into too much specifics, it was one of those companies that harvest all your personal info and sell it. I initially contacted them to remove my info. from their site and they responded back w/a canned response saying I'd need to sign up for their services, call them and then have it removed which was a load of bullshit. I then invoked CCPA and told them the AG's office would be notified of their violation of CCPA and it was enough to got a personal response from them and the info was gone w/in 5 minutes.

P.S. I still wrote the AG's office concerning their shady practices because fuck that company.

 

[lightsout]

If you're carrying a smartphone with an internet connection anywhere with you, then you're part of the problem.

Who in their right mind would do that?

 

[dgz]

Who in their right mind would do that?

exactly

 

[alxlwson]

The Trains running on time is a good thing. Tyrants can make the trains run on time. Does that mean having a Tyrant is a good thing?

Not that you'd need to, but I did toss this in the logic square.

 

[M76]

exactly

So you don't have internet on your phone at all? Because turning off internet doesn't actually prevent it from storing your location data. Whenever it gets internet again it just uploads it anyway.

 

[dgz]

So you don't have internet on your phone at all? Because turning off internet doesn't actually prevent it from storing your location data. Whenever it gets internet again it just uploads it anyway.

Gave up my smartphone back in 2012. Then Snowden dropped the bomb in 2013, which cemented my views on the matter.

I also used to work for a telecom and have a pretty good idea what's going on. When a CTO of a multinational tells you they are opening the warehouse for sale, you lose all hope for the future. That was way before GDPR was a thing, though.

 

[Retronym]

If you own a home, you are listed on the internet.

You post online. The government can match your writing voice to find everything you have written with dozens of different screen names.

If you have walked in the city, they have a digital mockup of your gate.

Telemetry is so 2015.

 

[GiGaBiTe]

If you own a home, you are listed on the internet.

You post online. The government can match your writing voice to find everything you have written with dozens of different screen names.

If you have walked in the city, they have a digital mockup of your gate.

Telemetry is so 2015.

So can everyone? You have more chance of getting cross with a cyber stalker than uncle sam.

I've had to track people down online, and it's not too difficult to figure out a whole lot about most people because they readily give up personal information. Even the people that don't usually have enough bread crumbs strewn about the internet to piece together how to contact them. Social media has become equally the easiest and most terrifying method of tracking someone down in human history.

 

[M76]

Gave up my smartphone back in 2012. Then Snowden dropped the bomb in 2013, which cemented my views on the matter.

I also used to work for a telecom and have a pretty good idea what's going on. When a CTO of a multinational tells you they are opening the warehouse for sale, you lose all hope for the future. That was way before GDPR was a thing, though.

Unfortunately you can't fully insulate yourself. If the person standing next to you on the street has a smartphone, or the person you talk to has one your conversation will be monitored and data mined for ad opportunities. It might not be connected to your name yet, but you have a file, and whenever that type of government rises to power who would want to punish thought crime (see: UK) they can easily connect the name to the voice, and it seems google would be more than happy to oblige.

 

[Meeho]

Unfortunately you can't fully insulate yourself. If the person standing next to you on the street has a smartphone, or the person you talk to has one your conversation will be monitored and data mined for ad opportunities. It might not be connected to your name yet, but you have a file, and whenever that type of government rises to power who would want to punish thought crime (see: UK) they can easily connect the name to the voice, and it seems google would be more than happy to oblige.

Just because it can be done in various ways, doesn't mean you should make it easy for them. And even if you can't hide ALL your data, you can hide much of it.

 

[M76]

Just because it can be done in various ways, doesn't mean you should make it easy for them. And even if you can't hide ALL your data, you can hide much of it.

Where did I say that? My point is that you cannot escape data collection, no matter how off the grid you are, so we need laws like GDPR.

 

[dgz]

Unfortunately you can't fully insulate yourself. If the person standing next to you on the street has a smartphone, or the person you talk to has one your conversation will be monitored and data mined for ad opportunities. It might not be connected to your name yet, but you have a file, and whenever that type of government rises to power who would want to punish thought crime (see: UK) they can easily connect the name to the voice, and it seems google would be more than happy to oblige.

I have accepted that everything is monitored and I can't escape it. No one can unless they build everything on their own. Everything. I have no idea who, but the reptilians, could have such an expertise and control over the whole supply chain. This is no trivial thing.

What thought crimes in the UK? Is it relevant to the topic?

 

[Liver]

GDPR was too little, too late. Unfortunately, that's not what the general population seem to think. In fact, almost no one cares about anyone's data protection. The first year was crazy as only the biggest organization seemed to be trying. Smaller players were acting as if nothing had changed.

But let's get to the people. They...., they don't care. And maybe they're right. If you're carrying a smartphone with an internet connection anywhere with you, then you're part of the problem.

That bolded part is so true. No one cares, not even the individual people that willingly gave that information over to FaceBook (insert whatever tech company you dislike though).

 

[M76]

What thought crimes in the UK? Is it relevant to the topic?

Not really, in the UK the police investigates facebook posts and you can get sentenced for offending someone. But someone can choose to get offended at anything, so it's a slippery slope.

 

[Inacurate]

That bolded part is so true. No one cares, not even the individual people that willingly gave that information over to FaceBook (insert whatever tech company you dislike though).

I don't care only because the information itself cannot be used to injure or harm myself...and I cannot speculate on a future scenario that exists in which it could.

I'm not going to tell another they cannot feel differently, but I'm also not going to enable/encourage that thinking since it's much too tinfoil hat over what's irrelevant (does not impact survival) data at the end of the day.
Absolutely take steps to minimize the data, protect yourself, etc. but to not have access to the technology or utilize it for my own personal benefit, for the low low cost of meaningless ones and zeroes, is asinine in my opinion.
And no, scenarios where accounts are hacked and private/personal details are released are not included, that's an entirely different topic.

I do care that I don't know how much a person's information is valued, since that's a number that we should all know and be aware of to ensure corporations don't overestimate the value to the point where they make stupid business decisions in the 'Quest for More Money' and help usher in a bleak dystopian future where the data is more important than the life creating it.