121–130 of 285 posts
The biggest unintended consequence I see is that more tech businesses will have to charge for their service rather than make money in opaque ways.
Twitter wouldn’t need to pretend that it didn’t know that a substantial part of its user base is fraud-bots if it just charged some nominal fees for something other than advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be heavy per leaked datum fines like HIPAA. This would transform huge troves of personal data from assets to liabilities, which is what we need.
I wonder if the process could be modeled after the recording industry, where the owner of the information can sue for damages that are set at a pre-determined amount per violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reads to me like the prison time in this bill is reserved for the crime of knowingly mis-certifying annual reports to the FTC on data protection (ie, for defrauding the government) --- those reports are also only required from businesses with $1B+ of revenue. The rest of the penalties in the bill seem to take the form of liability under FTC's "Unfair Trade Practices" authority.
Thanks for clarifying; I completely misunderstood that. If only journalists were half as good as you at reporting information...
I read this and immediately thought "oh shit, yet another regulation for a small bootstrapped software business where we try to be honest while the big guys will still find a way to circumvent it". Thankfully, I looked into the fine print and was wrong. This bill is only for Corporations that do over $50,000,000 in revenues or higher OR (EDITED from AND) have info on at least 1,000,000 or more customers. Of course, I…
1) Revenue of less than $50 million; AND 2) Must not have info on 1 million or more people; AND 3) cannot be a data broker
That means an independent app developer who gets more than 1 million installs, or a website with more than 1 million users, IS a covered entity, regardless of revenue. Also, ANY "data broker," regardless of size, is covered.
This info is on page 4 and 5.
Edit: How is a factual comment getting downvotes? OP read it wrong, and I told him so. There's nothing in this comment to disagree with. There are only facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. The bill defines covered entities in Sec. 2.(5)(A) and 2.(5)(B). In particular, companies with less than $50,000,000 in gross receipts and information on fewer than 1,000,000 customers are not covered by this legislation. And even if those apply to your local coffee shop or whatever, Sec. 2(5)(B)(iii) further limits the definition of covered entity so that businesses that do not provide 3rd party access to info…
Unless inflation happens... This only applies to big businesses now, but in 25 years it will start effecting medium sized firms and it will eventually hit small businesses. This will create a morass of bureaucratic regulations stifling entrepreneurship...
I read this and immediately thought "oh shit, yet another regulation for a small bootstrapped software business where we try to be honest while the big guys will still find a way to circumvent it". Thankfully, I looked into the fine print and was wrong. This bill is only for Corporations that do over $50,000,000 in revenues or higher OR (EDITED from AND) have info on at least 1,000,000 or more customers. Of course, I…
So then big corps do all their customer information risking behavior in spun out small wholly owned subsidiaries or even arms length non owned ones and if successful acquire them for some fixed amount but if they screw up with this law the company just folds and the parent is free from financial damage.
"(ii) is not substantially owned, oper ated, or controlled by a person, partner ship, or corporation that does not meet the 6 requirements under clause"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like the renaissance we've all been waiting for. Every would-be entrepreneur's wet dream is a $20/month subscription for Facebook.
i would pay $2/month at most for facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It needs punishment for the management who doesnt allow time to set things up properly Hard to show it was management's fault, and not the result of a developer who really didn't have the AWS skills (though that's probably still the fault of management, for not verifying skillsets before hiring or giving AWS keys) Everything we know about iteration cycles, quick access to devops resources, etc, will change when pri…
> Hard to show it was management's fault, and not the result of a developer... No. A leader is ultimately responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen under his or her leadership. Full stop. The people in charge of your hypothetical developer are the only ones with the ability to put processes in place to prevent it from happening. They are the least-cost avoider. Therefore, the power and the responsibi…
Over the past few years, developers have seen more and more autonomy and power. I can't imagine there's a way to avoid walking some of that back (if it can be)
It would be common sense to pass laws before it happened and would of incentivize companies to beef up security.
I read this and immediately thought "oh shit, yet another regulation for a small bootstrapped software business where we try to be honest while the big guys will still find a way to circumvent it". Thankfully, I looked into the fine print and was wrong. This bill is only for Corporations that do over $50,000,000 in revenues or higher OR (EDITED from AND) have info on at least 1,000,000 or more customers. Of course, I…
You read that wrong. In order to NOT be a "covered entity," you must meet ALL of the following criteria: 1) Revenue of less than $50 million; AND 2) Must not have info on 1 million or more people; AND 3) cannot be a data broker That means an independent app developer who gets more than 1 million installs, or a website with more than 1 million users, IS a covered entity, regardless of revenue . Also, ANY "data broker,…