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

501–510 of 553 posts

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

#501

Post by zbentley »

ptest1 wrote: post #210
mdavidn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git does have a mechanism to remove data from history. It's ugly, and you end up with new commit hashes, but it works. It was designed for situations in which a developer accidentally adds something sensitive, like a production database snapshot, to source control.

Yeah so you could do a rebase and remove all of the user’s commits, but their work would likely still remain in the subsequent history- integrated as changes in some way. It would be a real mess.

Users' contributions (their work) and users' personal information (their metadata) are separate in this case.

Cases where they are not separate (think digital signatures/signing keys) are a slightly more complicated question to answer.

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

#502

Post by xz0r »

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…

> It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. > I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours.

I never explicitly stated that I'd serve these companies by giving my data. Services cannot be assumed, why do you think there are such long Terms of Service. We as users should also have Terms of Service then.

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

#503

Post by brongondwana »

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…

European tax law also requires two separate pieces of non-contradictory evidence to prove where you are located:

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/i... (PDF) section 2.1.

Which makes it hard to charge money to people without knowing where they are!

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

#504

Post by buboard »

yalogin wrote: post #106

It’s jarring to see such headlines on TechCrunch. They fed the valley by giving every little news a place and are ne of the original hype masters for startups. They profit off the area by hosting the disrupt conference as well, which is again a huge pat each other on the back event. So now they turn around and post a headline like that is just somehow ugly to me. It’s absolutely in their right obviously.

Journalists think that bashing big tech because they are rich gives them views. I doubt there is evidence for that but journobloggers tend to be very herdish.

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

#505

Post by emiliobumachar »

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?

The core disagreement is that I might want to pay with data only for services to me, and this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed.

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

#506

Post by M2Ys4U »

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…

The GDPR applies to everyone, globally, if the data controller is in the EU, whether they are a resident or not.

The GDPR applies to a data subject regarding data about their activities when inside the EU, whether the data controller is in the EU or not.

If both the data subject and the data controller(s) and data processors(s) are outside of the EU, then the GDPR does not apply.

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

#507

Post by emiliobumachar »

connicpu wrote: post #251
refurb wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do car dealerships do it then?

Because when you buy a car you aren't usually buying "a [year] [make] [model] [with these features]". You're buying " that specific car with that unique identifier"

Really? So all it takes to work around this supposed law is to give your products unique identifiers?

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

#508

Post by emiliobumachar »

1000units wrote: post #454
cameronbrown wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet if I showed any particular one what kind of information I have access to about them This is where the line is drawn for most - if people from Facebook, Amazon or Google look at information other than machines. Totally fine if it's just a computer with a strong law like GDPR safeguarding it.

People are looking.

Not that I'm doubting you, but could you please provide sources?

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

#509

Post by dao- »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #505
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?

The core disagreement is that I might want to pay with data only for services to me, and this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed.

> this new standard practically mandates that free riders are allowed.

It doesn't. That's merely one way how businesses could comply with the law, the other option would be to look for better business models as I said in the comment you replied to.

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

#510

Post by KSteffensen »

ummonk wrote: post #423
m463 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the dilemma that if you pay for something with a credit card, you have to identify yourself.

Not if you use Apple Pay though no?

Why would Apple not be selling your data the same as everyone else?
Post reply on HN