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

441–450 of 553 posts

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

#441

Post by scarejunba »

100100010001 wrote: post #434
scarejunba wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your proof is that you “personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out”? That’s anecdotal evidence at best (aka not proof).

This is a confusing interpretation of what I said:

> 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.

Most people I know would interpret that as "I know I'm not the only one because". After all, I specifically say "not evidence of numbers" and I also specifically say "existence proof". I find your response baffling.

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

#443

Post by mokus »

Marsymars wrote: post #420
oarabbus_ wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Where does $2.5/year come from? Other comments in this discussion have suggested that it would be more like $120/year in the US, or $25/year for a global average

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

#444

Post by munk-a »

cwkoss wrote: post #376
Kalium wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each state can choose to be as restrictive as they like in their laws, and each startup can chose to invest in compliance on a wide scale or in the narrow scale as they'd like. There's a special hell that exists where one state mandates records must be held for at least seven years and another mandates deletion at five. When the two states border one another and you may not have home addresses, how do you determine…

Pass a federal law that allows any American to choose the state jurisdiction they want their account managed under at sign up. Corporations can choose to incorporate in Delaware without any real presence, consumers should be able to pick and choose jurisdictions as well.

I wonder if California could just permit cases to be filed in it's courts regardless of residence or the locality of the disputed action so long as the defendant has a presence there.

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

#445

Post by ianmcgowan »

csande17 wrote: post #432
BoorishBears wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't understand the risks and how badly mass surveillance done by Google / Facebook / etc can be abused. This is totally dodging the issue. Would they pay instead of allowing that collection? Given the choice of "pay for this service", "stop using this service", "give up your data", even with a full understanding of the risks and the extent of this data, the general public has shown time and time again…

> People will pay 5$ for 50 cents of coffee beans and enough sugar to drown a fly a day, but they will never pay 5$ a month to access nearly the entirety of mankind's collective knowledge at their fingertips in milliseconds I pay a lot more than $5/month for Internet service.

Would you pay $5 on top of that ISP charge to Google, so that your search experience is ad-free? Would you pay $5 for fastmail.com's standard plan over gmail?

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

#446

Post by lastpingstandin »

BoorishBears wrote: post #425
SXX wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General population is simply not aware of how much surveillance is involved and how much of their private information said companies collect, use or sell to 3rd parties. Many are happy to get "free" service in exchange for "some data", but most people people would be very much against someone data mining their health or pregnancy status, using some sophisticated algorithm to selling something harmful to their kids or…

> Most people don't understand the risks and how badly mass surveillance done by Google / Facebook / etc can be abused. This is totally dodging the issue. Would they pay instead of allowing that collection? Given the choice of "pay for this service", "stop using this service", "give up your data", even with a full understanding of the risks and the extent of this data, the general public has shown time and time again…

Agreed.

I recall people were talking about turning back to piracy in response to the fragmentation of streaming services.

Disney plus will cost around 7 dollars a month, Netflix costs 13, HBO costs 15. This is about 23, 45, and 50 cents per day respectively.

Yet this change was enough to cause some people to angrily proclaim that they'll go back to illegally downloading movies and tv shows.

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

#447

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 entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours.

The problem is that these companies advertise their products as "free," which means something very different. And they usually don't mention at all that they're collecting shit tons of personal data. It's taking advantage of people's ignorance, and it's practically fraud, IMO.

Every other business tells the customer up front what the price is, and maybe it's time tech companies started doing the same.

Without telling users what data they collect, how much they collect, how they use it, and who they give it to, there's no way for users to make an informed decision.

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

#448

Post by Marsymars »

mokus wrote: post #443
Marsymars wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where does $2.5/year come from? Other comments in this discussion have suggested that it would be more like $120/year in the US, or $25/year for a global average

$2.5/year from each of their monthly active users would be sufficient to keep Facebook in the Fortune 500. (As referenced in the post I was replying to.)

(Tangentially, they would have to cut costs to remain profitable, but I figure it should be possible for 6k employees to maintain a set of services that people are willing to pay $2.5/year for.)

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

#449

Post by vsl »

lastpingstandin wrote: post #446
BoorishBears wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't understand the risks and how badly mass surveillance done by Google / Facebook / etc can be abused. This is totally dodging the issue. Would they pay instead of allowing that collection? Given the choice of "pay for this service", "stop using this service", "give up your data", even with a full understanding of the risks and the extent of this data, the general public has shown time and time again…

Agreed. I recall people were talking about turning back to piracy in response to the fragmentation of streaming services. Disney plus will cost around 7 dollars a month, Netflix costs 13, HBO costs 15. This is about 23, 45, and 50 cents per day respectively. Yet this change was enough to cause some people to angrily proclaim that they'll go back to illegally downloading movies and tv shows.

Agree about the overall point, but this example is unfortunate: complaints about fragmentation are not only about money: crappy apps, less convenience, lack of availability (outside US), etc.

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

#450

Post by vsl »

JohnFen wrote: post #378
sgregnt wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this I don't think they do, given that most people don't read them, and a large percentage of them are written so it's very hard to tell what they are really saying unless you're a lawyer.

That nobody gives a damn and doesn’t even read it kinda proves the point, no?
Post reply on HN