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

401–410 of 553 posts

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

#401

Post by scarejunba »

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 one's performed a proper survey AFAIK, but the GDPR opt-out rate is very very low, which provides weak evidence. This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out.

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

#402

Post by cft »

pgcj_poster wrote: post #393
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 strongly suspect that if you asked people 50 years ago whether it was ok for companies to eg. track everywhere most people go, I think the vast majority would have said no. Google et al. just started spying on everyone without any serious debate over whether it was right. Then once people caught on, they either had to stop caring about privacy, or they had be Richard Stallman and eschew pretty much all mainstream c…

I understand the requirements to clearly disclose, so that a user can make an informed decision, but deciding for the user is hubris.

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

#403

Post by chaostheory »

nabnob wrote: post #52

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Quoting from this article - https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/28/landmark-california-privac... - Businesses must disclose what information they collect, what business purpose they do so for and any third parties they share that data with. - Businesses would be required to comply with official consumer requests to delete that d…

> I totally understand that this will impact a lot of tech companies' profits...but that's to be expected if you're making money selling people's data to third parties without their permission.

Yes, it is also subsidizing what would normally be paid services. Before online advertising, people would pay for services like email. Sure, $5 / month is cheap for us, but what about the developing world and the lower class?

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

#404

Post by joshklein »

vonmoltke wrote: post #298
joshklein wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law, and California laws don’t change that. EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim. Enumerating the established methods to avoid meeting the legal parameters of price discrimination is not the same as price discrimination being legal. My bar for…

> that is not the same as price discrimination being legal From refurb's link below: "Price discriminations are generally lawful" See https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

You’ll love their take on net neutrality.

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

#405

Post by pgcj_poster »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #53
FussyZeus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to have a conversation about jurisdictions in the digital age. The way governments have decided that having a website accessible in a country makes you liable to respect the law of this country is a convulted and hacky notion that has been accepted way too fast. You know if you turn that around and say "How come we have to respect the laws of every country we do business in?" it sounds a lot more self servi…

> Nobody said your movie has to be viewable in China. You will of course forgive me if I do not find economic favoritism that benefits politically connected industrialists, the restriction of freedom of thought by oppressive governments, and the general Balkanization of the Internet, to be things that we ought to celebrate. Once upon a time the memes of Internet culture would suggest that "information wants to be fre…

All of these argument apply to national sovereignty in general. When different countries can have different laws, it does indeed mean that France can have tax laws favoring French companies, a US company might have a harder time setting up shop in Germany, and North Korea can oppress its people with impunity.

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

#406

Post by dao- »

scarejunba wrote: post #395
dao- wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data Okay, cool, don't opt out then. I on the other hand would prefer to see ads based on the content I'm viewing for which no other data from me needs to be passed around.

Yeah, and those parts of CCPA I support. I also support the data deletion stuff. Everyone should be able to revoke consent at any time. What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". I think you should be able to say what you're willing to accept and get appropriate service. In fact, ideally, the User Agent would advertise our privileges. Like a DNT option and websites would respond wit…

> What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out".

Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?

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

#407

Post by scarejunba »

dao- wrote: post #406
scarejunba wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and those parts of CCPA I support. I also support the data deletion stuff. Everyone should be able to revoke consent at any time. What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". I think you should be able to say what you're willing to accept and get appropriate service. In fact, ideally, the User Agent would advertise our privileges. Like a DNT option and websites would respond wit…

> What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?

Well, then, I suppose that's where our disagreement lies. I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people so long as harm is not being done (hence I'm pro-CCPA in the ways it protects people from being harmed and disagree with it where does not actively protect from harm) and you have a different bar.

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

#408

Post by jlarocco »

darawk wrote: post #172
nabnob wrote: post #52

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Quoting from this article - https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/28/landmark-california-privac... - Businesses must disclose what information they collect, what business purpose they do so for and any third parties they share that data with. - Businesses would be required to comply with official consumer requests to delete that d…

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

> The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data.

If people don't find your product valuable enough to pay for, then your company should go out of business.

Companies have been exploiting people's privacy behind their back, and now that they've been called on it they're throwing a tantrum.

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

#409

Post by lightedman »

joshklein wrote: post #207
darawk wrote: post #172

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. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law, and California laws don’t change that. EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim. Enumerating the established methods to avoid meeting the legal parameters of price discrimination is not the same as price discrimination being legal. My bar for…

"EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim."

They have no clue about the Robinson-Patman Act amendments to the Clayton Act.

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

#410

Post by lightedman »

reaperducer wrote: post #255
joshklein wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law, and California laws don’t change that. EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim. Enumerating the established methods to avoid meeting the legal parameters of price discrimination is not the same as price discrimination being legal. My bar for…

Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law Demonstrably untrue. It is illegal to charge a different price based on a protected class like race or gender. But travel sites, for example, are notorious for charging different people different prices based on their GeoIP, whether they're on mobile or desktop, or Windows vs Macintosh.

"Demonstrably untrue."

Robinson-Patman Act says "Please read me, and understand me and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act which I amend."

Post reply on HN