Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 553 posts

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#361

Post by caconym_ »

edmundsauto wrote: post #317
caconym_ wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in America we already restrict certain types of transactions, e.g. selling illegal and/or restricted drugs is itself generally illegal IIRC. Similarly I'm pretty sure slavery is illegal even if it's entered into voluntarily (please correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not speaking from specific knowledge). We impose these restrictions for the good of the public. If we decide that exchanging personal data for g…

There's significant pushback against the restricted drugs thing, so that might not be the best comparison.

I mean, I'd push back against some of it myself, but how many people are arguing that e.g. methamphetamine and fentanyl should be freely available?

Of course, it's all up for debate. I used it as an example because it's the status quo, so it's a good refutation of the statement that this new law is "crazy" in the sense of it being radical and unprecedented.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#362

Post by buboard »

rpastuszak wrote: post #347
d1zzy wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell the…

I think you’re missing the point. At least I know where my data is. Have you ever read a GDPR popup partner list? Do the people you mention understand how gmail business model works?

"Have you ever read a BGP table"? Arguing that there are too many people in ad exchanges is a very weak argument. This is the internet, which enables global scale exchanges of all kinds of things. GDPR is a law designed for the 1800s

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#363

Post by jonny_eh »

mattbee wrote: post #126
aeternum wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think lawmakers have thought through the ramifications. Here are a few: Way too hard to enforce, the definition of 'customer data' is going to be a constantly moving target. Does every click count? How about aggregated clicks important for general product optimization? What constitutes 'selling' user data? Very few companies actually sell your data, instead they place ads based on your data. Will that be bann…

European here, I can help: Yes a click counts as personal data if you can reference it back to a real person. Aggregated clicks probably wouldn't. Selling ads based on personal data is selling your personal data. The personal data provides the value to the transaction. Yes lots of companies may need new business models, but for the most part what I've seen is dark patterns, non compliance or wriggling to avoid any re…

> Aggregated clicks probably wouldn't.

> Selling ads based on personal data is selling your personal data. The personal data provides the value to the transaction.

What about selling ads based on aggregated data? e.g. put users into buckets, then sell ads for those buckets.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#364

Post by 100100010001 »

scarejunba wrote: post #306
jakelazaroff wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…

Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data. Lots of us feel that the data thing should be a…

Is this anecdotal or do you have empirical evidence?

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#365

Post by jonny_eh »

JohnFen wrote: post #229
chroma wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this mentality. If someone is fine giving a company some information, and the company uses that to give them a better product, where is the harm? And what right do you have to stop those two parties from voluntarily exchanging goods and services?

If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or…

> companies often forward that data to others

Why not just outlaw that?

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#366

Post by JohnFen »

Steven_Vellon wrote: post #302
JohnFen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of people think putting a clause in the EULA that says user data can be monetized is being respectful of user data Do they really believe that, though? I always thought they were just thinking it was just legal cover to allow them to do whatever they want with the data. Respect doesn't enter into it.

What's wrong with it? The End user license agreement is the document explicitly dedicated to explaining how the interaction between the user and the software will work. If a company explains how the data will be used and the user consents to that agreement what is the issue? I don't doubt that there are people that don't bother to read the EULA but thats a leading-a-horse-to-water situation.

I didn't say that there was something wrong with it, I said that it doesn't count as being respectful of user data.

That said, almost all EULAs and privacy statements I've ever read have not been forthcoming about the use of data. They usually state, in broad terms, that they'll share unspecified user data with mysterious "partners" for nonspecific reasons.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#367

Post by JohnFen »

jonny_eh wrote: post #365
JohnFen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or…

> companies often forward that data to others Why not just outlaw that?

That should be part of it. Another part should be that the data can't be collected without my permission in the first place.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#368

Post by JohnFen »

chroma wrote: post #314
JohnFen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or…

OK so if I understand you, you are worried that companies are collecting data on people and then using that data to give them more personalized ads. These ads may convince people to buy or do things that they otherwise wouldn't. It's not just that people would buy Chevys instead of Fords. They could be convinced to vote differently and support harmful policies. I hope that's an accurate summary of your view. I have a…

> I hope that's an accurate summary of your view.

It's not, really.

I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point.

Marketing companies come into it simply because they are the most egregious bad actors when it comes to those two points.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#369

Post by inlined »

mrmuagi wrote: post #201
ashelmire wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. > - Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. This just means your service always costs money, but you can refund the full amount for allowing you to collect data.

Is there a difference between offering, say, $12 monthly opt-out & $10 plan for opt-in vs flat $12 with a $2 discount to opt-in?

Probably. Loss aversion may make the user more likely want to recover $2 rather than pay $2 to upgrade to tracking-free versions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#370

Post by sgregnt »

100100010001 wrote: post #364
scarejunba wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data. Lots of us feel that the data thing should be a…

Is this anecdotal or do you have empirical evidence?

No this is one of the most verified facts. The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this: if you use the service you agree to this. Majority of people use Gmail, Facebook, etc. So this is not anecdotal. On the other hand the desire to "protect" privacy at the expense of free services is based on anecdotal data at best.
Post reply on HN