Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding EU privacy rules

Re:Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding E... by dheera on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @06:47PM (#25437033)

Would it be possible to store data in a cryptographically decentralized way to stop giving meaning to "where" a data is stored?

Or maybe even just XOR it with a random key, put the result in the UK and put the key in the US. That way neither US nor UK has "personal data" -- independently each country just got a pile of white noise -- but the two countries together do have it, and they wouldn't be able to say who "really" has it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding E... by mfer on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @07:31PM (#25437445)

This issue isn't a case of what is technologically feasible.

This is about what's profitable and within legal policies of a country they are operating in.

Where data is stored is sometimes an issue of jurisdiction policy (laws).

Think of this as a separation between requirements (what) and implementation (how)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding E... by dheera on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @08:23PM (#25437870)

I suppose, but law has to be governed by written documents, and part of technology's job is to advance society by identifying and operating in the loopholes of those written documents. What does the written law define as "where data is stored"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding E... by 8note on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @07:04PM (#25437190)

The government can just hold the locals in prison until the decrypted data is provided

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook to move UK users to California terms, avoiding E... by azalemeth on Thursday December 17, 2020 @04:41AM (#25454065)

This is literally the law in the UK at the moment: https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_...

[ Parent | on HN ]