18 ms·

Complaint filed against Irish subsidiaries of Apple, Facebook

181 points by dnlbyl 13y ago

orokusaki 13y ago
Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's OK for the state to have 120 cameras on each street corner watching your every move (see London), but it's not OK to share your Facebook posts? Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news
- kjjw 13y ago
  I'm sorry but there is a very obvious and clear distinction between these two forms of surveillance. The first monitors public space, the second does not. To me it is not obvious that "my rights" have been affected by the monitoring of public spaces.
  - pyre 13y ago
    I disagree with the "CCTV everywhere" movement, but I agree that it is preferable to the invasions put forth by the NSA/US Government.
- octagonal 13y ago
  There is no right to privacy in public spaces and no expectation thereof either. The only thing those cameras do is replace police officers. Another thing you are also forgetting is that people were aware of those cameras the second they were installed. No secret court bullshit. With personal correspondences on the other hand, people expect the contents of their messages to be entirely private. That secrecy should only be invaded upon within the confines of a morally justifiable law, especially when a foreign agency is doing the invading.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    I think you mean there is no reasonable legal expectation of privacy on a public street. I certainly expect that you will not follow me around videotaping me.
    - PedroBatista 13y ago
      Your are in a public space, people can videotape you the same way they can look at you instead of everyone closing their eyes the moment put your feet on a side-walk. Just look at all the photos you have taken, how many strangers are in them?
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        Sure, my point is that there is a technical legal argument and then there are social mores. We shouldn't let the legal argument start leading our values. I invite you to actively start photographing or videotaping some strangers if you think such behavior is entirely within people's expectations.
        hfsktr 13y ago
        I thought it was linked from HN somewhere but I can't find it. There are several videos from this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc Some of them he is clearly in a school or something, which may not be public. In others he is outside. I believe this is how you expected people to react? Edit: found it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152
      - criley2 13y ago
        It gets murky. I can sue you for using my likeness depending on how you utilize your footage. You certainly don't have carte blanche to use images of me you took in public.
        PedroBatista 13y ago
- hermaj 13y ago
  The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned and have no connection to the state. The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.
  - orokusaki 13y ago
    Sure, but what if I place a camera on each side of your property (outside the property line) of your house, pointing to the edge of your property, then use your tax dollars to pay employees to watch you on the cameras every time you leave your property? Would you enjoy that? If not, why would you put up with it? It's your state, not the government's state. The government are your employees, not your owners, so you have to decide which rights you want, not just which rights can still be defended by existing laws.
    - hermaj 13y ago
      I'm not sure if you're serious here. The UK government doesn't own the vast majority of the cameras in the UK which make up this 'huge' number. The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not connected to a grand network. The majority of cameras are in small shops / stores and are used to provide evidence for shoplifting or other types of theft. It's the owners choice as to whether they are there or not. The UK government doesn't employ vast numbers of people to watch the live output of the minority of CCTV cameras they do own. The state owned CCTV is almost never used in a proactive sense. You can probably safely commit most crimes in full view of a CCTV camera in the UK. If someone reports you or you leave obvious evidence of the crime the CCTV tapes will be reviewed. There is a massive difference between the man power requirements of analysing video footage compared to analysis of text.
      - orokusaki 13y ago
        XE is a private company. So is Lockheed Martin and Haliburton. Clearly, I've struck a nerve in you (that was not the intent), but it's your choice to believe whatever you want about the intentions of the state (or any private company). I'll just say, I'm sure glad I don't live there, and I'm glad I don't live in the US... I'll stick to living in a hostile tax haven in the Caribbean, watching the rest of the world give up their rights and their gold, bit by bit :)
- pilsetnieks 13y ago
  UK is not representative of the whole EU.
  - rmc 13y ago
    especially when it comes to EU-wide things or EU law. UK often implements the mininum, or opts out of parts (e.g. euro)
- rmc 13y ago
  I will point out that this complaint against Facebook was filed in Ireland with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, whereas you're talking about a different country, the UK.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Obviously the Austrian student group who filed this lawsuit are total hypocrites based on what the UK does.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Guys, that was sarcasm. I wasn't claiming that the Austrian students are responsible for UK CCTV policy.
itg 13y ago
Article also mentioned Microsoft, Skype, and Yahoo will be targeted in other countries but there was nothing about Google or Youtube. However, found this on techcrunch: "Google and YouTube have not been included in this first round of evf complaints being as they have a different corporate structure that does not include European subsidiaries. However it notes they do have datacenters in European countries, which will give evf a route to filing Prism-related data protection complaints against both at a later date." Forcing these companies to give data has weakened their competitiveness globally.
- revscat 13y ago
  I am curious to see if the business case against the NSA's power will have an effect. Right now I think things favor the bureaucracy. But if Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. make a broad push against it, we could see legislative changes which protect them. A likely scenario is something which indemnifies them against any losses incurred as a result of foreign suits related to privacy breaches, so long as they're in accordance with US law.
  - furyg3 13y ago
    It will become a problem when European countries / organisations start requiring that data cannot be stored or managed at a US datacenter or by a US organisation. You already see this happening with with datacenter locations...
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > It will become a problem when European countries / organisations start requiring that data cannot be stored or managed at a US datacenter There are already restrictions on exporting personal data outside the EU. This is under the various data protection laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive#Transfer_of_personal_data_to_third_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive#Tran...) I guess the exceptions will be tightened up now, especially if EU consumers press for it.
thenewkid 13y ago
The lawsuit targets the Irish subsidiary because that's where the money is. If they move they will probably pay higher taxes. Quite clever! > The group’s complaint draws on the precedent set in 2006, which found that a mass transfer of data to the US authorities was illegal under EU law... The Swift case was closed when the company moved its data centre from Belgium to Switzerland.
- rmc 13y ago
  (a) It's not a lawsuit, but a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, which is like a type of court. The DPC can force companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law. (b) Facebook Ireland Ltd (an Irish company) was targetted, not because it's "where the money is", but because if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law. (cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >The DPC can force [Irish] companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law. >if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law. Facebook can choose to change this, but they won't because they benefit from the double Irish; because that's "where the money is."
Fuxy 13y ago
Well this is going to be interesting. And don't forget guys this is the EU we're talking about not US. It is a lot more difficult for companies to make changes in their favor since every country has its on system and it's own ways. Just the amount of paper pushers in Europe is exponentially higher. Makes "convincing" any one of them less effective due to their limited power.
- tomp 13y ago
  Not really. The thing is, people in Europe want privacy, and will go to great lengths to retain it.
doctorwho 13y ago
It's going to come down to what kind of business the Irish company carries out on behalf of the parent company or whether the Irish company is the parent. There are so many ways the relationship could be set up and figuring it all out could take a loooong time. First they have to work that out before they can determine whether they are responsible for following EU law and what laws they are obliged to follow. The Irish company may not have anything to do with data which would pretty much let them off the hook I'm guessing.
- rmc 13y ago
  Well anyone who signs up to Facebook who's not in USA or Canada is technically signing an agreement with Facebook Ireland Ltd. So, the Irish company is responsible for the data of hundreds of millions of Facebook users. (cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )
if_by_whisky 13y ago
This brings up an interesting issue with multinationals... How do you react when you receive compulsory orders in one country of operation that violates laws of another?
- Aissen 13y ago
  There's a solution to that. Do not store data from a customer from one country, in another region. Actually, the biggest european hosting company, OVH, is doing just that in order to launch in North America, and protect its European, Canadian, and USA customers: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.ovh.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D71852&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...

181 points by dnlbyl 13y ago

Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's OK for the state to have 120 cameras on each street corner watching your every move (see London), but it's not OK to share your Facebook posts? Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news

kjjw 13y ago
I'm sorry but there is a very obvious and clear distinction between these two forms of surveillance. The first monitors public space, the second does not. To me it is not obvious that "my rights" have been affected by the monitoring of public spaces.
- pyre 13y ago
  I disagree with the "CCTV everywhere" movement, but I agree that it is preferable to the invasions put forth by the NSA/US Government.
octagonal 13y ago
There is no right to privacy in public spaces and no expectation thereof either. The only thing those cameras do is replace police officers. Another thing you are also forgetting is that people were aware of those cameras the second they were installed. No secret court bullshit. With personal correspondences on the other hand, people expect the contents of their messages to be entirely private. That secrecy should only be invaded upon within the confines of a morally justifiable law, especially when a foreign agency is doing the invading.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I think you mean there is no reasonable legal expectation of privacy on a public street. I certainly expect that you will not follow me around videotaping me.
  - PedroBatista 13y ago
    Your are in a public space, people can videotape you the same way they can look at you instead of everyone closing their eyes the moment put your feet on a side-walk. Just look at all the photos you have taken, how many strangers are in them?
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      Sure, my point is that there is a technical legal argument and then there are social mores. We shouldn't let the legal argument start leading our values. I invite you to actively start photographing or videotaping some strangers if you think such behavior is entirely within people's expectations.
      - hfsktr 13y ago
        I thought it was linked from HN somewhere but I can't find it. There are several videos from this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym7x7twSoqc Some of them he is clearly in a school or something, which may not be public. In others he is outside. I believe this is how you expected people to react? Edit: found it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4739152
    - criley2 13y ago
      It gets murky. I can sue you for using my likeness depending on how you utilize your footage. You certainly don't have carte blanche to use images of me you took in public.
      - PedroBatista 13y ago
hermaj 13y ago
The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned and have no connection to the state. The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.
- orokusaki 13y ago
  Sure, but what if I place a camera on each side of your property (outside the property line) of your house, pointing to the edge of your property, then use your tax dollars to pay employees to watch you on the cameras every time you leave your property? Would you enjoy that? If not, why would you put up with it? It's your state, not the government's state. The government are your employees, not your owners, so you have to decide which rights you want, not just which rights can still be defended by existing laws.
  - hermaj 13y ago
    I'm not sure if you're serious here. The UK government doesn't own the vast majority of the cameras in the UK which make up this 'huge' number. The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not connected to a grand network. The majority of cameras are in small shops / stores and are used to provide evidence for shoplifting or other types of theft. It's the owners choice as to whether they are there or not. The UK government doesn't employ vast numbers of people to watch the live output of the minority of CCTV cameras they do own. The state owned CCTV is almost never used in a proactive sense. You can probably safely commit most crimes in full view of a CCTV camera in the UK. If someone reports you or you leave obvious evidence of the crime the CCTV tapes will be reviewed. There is a massive difference between the man power requirements of analysing video footage compared to analysis of text.
    - orokusaki 13y ago
      XE is a private company. So is Lockheed Martin and Haliburton. Clearly, I've struck a nerve in you (that was not the intent), but it's your choice to believe whatever you want about the intentions of the state (or any private company). I'll just say, I'm sure glad I don't live there, and I'm glad I don't live in the US... I'll stick to living in a hostile tax haven in the Caribbean, watching the rest of the world give up their rights and their gold, bit by bit :)
pilsetnieks 13y ago
UK is not representative of the whole EU.
- rmc 13y ago
  especially when it comes to EU-wide things or EU law. UK often implements the mininum, or opts out of parts (e.g. euro)
rmc 13y ago
I will point out that this complaint against Facebook was filed in Ireland with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, whereas you're talking about a different country, the UK.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Obviously the Austrian student group who filed this lawsuit are total hypocrites based on what the UK does.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Guys, that was sarcasm. I wasn't claiming that the Austrian students are responsible for UK CCTV policy.

itg 13y ago

Article also mentioned Microsoft, Skype, and Yahoo will be targeted in other countries but there was nothing about Google or Youtube. However, found this on techcrunch: "Google and YouTube have not been included in this first round of evf complaints being as they have a different corporate structure that does not include European subsidiaries. However it notes they do have datacenters in European countries, which will give evf a route to filing Prism-related data protection complaints against both at a later date." Forcing these companies to give data has weakened their competitiveness globally.

revscat 13y ago
I am curious to see if the business case against the NSA's power will have an effect. Right now I think things favor the bureaucracy. But if Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. make a broad push against it, we could see legislative changes which protect them. A likely scenario is something which indemnifies them against any losses incurred as a result of foreign suits related to privacy breaches, so long as they're in accordance with US law.
- furyg3 13y ago
  It will become a problem when European countries / organisations start requiring that data cannot be stored or managed at a US datacenter or by a US organisation. You already see this happening with with datacenter locations...
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > It will become a problem when European countries / organisations start requiring that data cannot be stored or managed at a US datacenter There are already restrictions on exporting personal data outside the EU. This is under the various data protection laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive#Transfer_of_personal_data_to_third_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive#Tran...) I guess the exceptions will be tightened up now, especially if EU consumers press for it.

thenewkid 13y ago

The lawsuit targets the Irish subsidiary because that's where the money is. If they move they will probably pay higher taxes. Quite clever! > The group’s complaint draws on the precedent set in 2006, which found that a mass transfer of data to the US authorities was illegal under EU law... The Swift case was closed when the company moved its data centre from Belgium to Switzerland.

rmc 13y ago
(a) It's not a lawsuit, but a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, which is like a type of court. The DPC can force companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law. (b) Facebook Ireland Ltd (an Irish company) was targetted, not because it's "where the money is", but because if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law. (cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >The DPC can force [Irish] companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law. >if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law. Facebook can choose to change this, but they won't because they benefit from the double Irish; because that's "where the money is."

Fuxy 13y ago

Well this is going to be interesting. And don't forget guys this is the EU we're talking about not US. It is a lot more difficult for companies to make changes in their favor since every country has its on system and it's own ways. Just the amount of paper pushers in Europe is exponentially higher. Makes "convincing" any one of them less effective due to their limited power.

tomp 13y ago
Not really. The thing is, people in Europe want privacy, and will go to great lengths to retain it.

doctorwho 13y ago

It's going to come down to what kind of business the Irish company carries out on behalf of the parent company or whether the Irish company is the parent. There are so many ways the relationship could be set up and figuring it all out could take a loooong time. First they have to work that out before they can determine whether they are responsible for following EU law and what laws they are obliged to follow. The Irish company may not have anything to do with data which would pretty much let them off the hook I'm guessing.

rmc 13y ago
Well anyone who signs up to Facebook who's not in USA or Canada is technically signing an agreement with Facebook Ireland Ltd. So, the Irish company is responsible for the data of hundreds of millions of Facebook users. (cf. section 19 of https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms )

if_by_whisky 13y ago

This brings up an interesting issue with multinationals... How do you react when you receive compulsory orders in one country of operation that violates laws of another?

Aissen 13y ago
There's a solution to that. Do not store data from a customer from one country, in another region. Actually, the biggest european hosting company, OVH, is doing just that in order to launch in North America, and protect its European, Canadian, and USA customers: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.ovh.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D71852&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...