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

411–420 of 553 posts

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

#411

Post by danans »

laughinghan wrote: post #344
danShumway wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works because you're the person who uploaded the data, and because you have a shared secret with Hackernews: in other words, an identity and a link between that identity and the data. Let's say someone else uploads a photo of my face to an image sharing site. Is there a way for me to prove to that site that the face belongs to me without sharing additional information? This principle also applies in the opposite…

My shared secret with HN, my password, is an identity? I don't think you'll find a lot of people who agree with that definition of the word. As for the use of photos of me that are owned by other people, I'm pretty certain that neither CCPA nor GDPR cover those. The EU might have some relevant privacy laws, but they're not relevant to the "dichotomy" you brought up, because no one expects to be unidentifiable in a ph…

No. But in the HN context, your user id is. If HN decided one day to monetize the site by showing you ads based on your posts, the kind of discussions you frequent, or your location, then it's a profile of personal info.

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

#412

Post by dao- »

scarejunba wrote: post #407
dao- wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people

That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.

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

#413

Post by jlarocco »

d1zzy wrote: post #332
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…

> "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…

> 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

That's nonsense.

Nobody can make an informed decision because nobody knows exactly what data Google collects or exactly how it's used.

And unless you've actually run a survey you can't even speculate about whether people are okay with it or not. If your claim was true, why would this law even exist? You're okay with it, but privacy is a highly personal issue.

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

#414

Post by danans »

shkkmo wrote: post #323
danShumway wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, this doesn't really work. You can compromise and build a system out of elements of each individual philosophy (and many people do), but there are going to be conflicts, and at that point you're going to have decide which system takes precedence. The first issue is that many privacy advocates who believe in anonymity do not believe in data ownership (or believe it should be much weaker). To them, the jump…

> The "anonymous" side's solution here is, "anybody should be able to convincingly and legally lie about their physical location to (virtually) any business." If that solution is implemented, GDPR and Right to Be Forgotten don't work because it's impossible to verify jurisdiction. How is that? GDPR protects EU residents when they are outside the EU, so you already can't just look at someone's location and decide not…

> How is that? GDPR protects EU residents when they are outside the EU, so you already can't just look at someone's location and decide not to give them GPDR protections.

How does the company know they are an EU resident when they are outside the EU? Probably because they have an account with the service, which makes it unlikely that they are anonymous.

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

#415

Post by scarejunba »

dao- wrote: post #412
scarejunba wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.

Okay, I'm happy to rewrite that whichever way you like, but I believe businesses are just groups of people. If you wish, consider that 'prefer to minimize regulation binding units of people or groups of people acting in concert'. I'm also content with it just being 'prefer to minimize regulation binding businesses or people so long as no active harm yada yada'.

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

#416

Post by 100100010001 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #388
100100010001 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is your opinion, unless you actually did a survey of violating a citizens privacy by big tech. Have you?

Presumably you have? Do share!

No need! I’m not presenting a hypothetical survey’s results without evidence. The person I was responding to is, unless they actually have such a survey. I asked for it and no one answered. Therefore, until there is a time with supporting evidence, we can’t even qualify the opinion as a theory, let alone a fact.

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

#417

Post by 100100010001 »

sgregnt wrote: post #370
100100010001 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it is a fact then show me the proof.

Just because people use a service doesn’t mean they have read the terms and conditions. Therefore, your anecdote is just that.

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

#418

Post by gpderetta »

scarejunba wrote: post #401
100100010001 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> GDPR opt-out rate is very very low,

Then again GDPR requires opt-in, but most sites ignore that and many make the opt out extremely time consuming.

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

#419

Post by chroma »

JohnFen wrote: post #368
chroma wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

> 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.

What can I engage with here? I'm trying to figure out what bad consequences you're worried about, but you seem to have a terminal value that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep information you sent them.

Let's try another tactic: What do you think of casinos that share surveillance photos of card sharps with other casinos? Or wifi hotspots at coffee shops that keep logs of mac addresses to limit abuse? Or news sites that limit non-paying visitors to 3 articles per month? Your statement seems to be so absolute that it forbids all of these legitimate uses.

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

#420

Post by Marsymars »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #315
buboard wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except, the full sentence in the bill reads: > including by charging the consumer who opts out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s dat Doesnt that second part cancel the first part? Businesses can also pay money for data ... so facebook can switch to subsciption only, but pay its users…

>so facebook can switch to subsciption only sure, if it wanted to fall out of the fortune 500.

If Facebook can't convince its users that its service is worth paying an average of $2.5 per year for, I don't think it really deserves to remain in the Fortune 500.
Post reply on HN