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

521–530 of 553 posts

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

#521

Post by hharlequin »

akamaozu wrote: post #498
Lucadg wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and this seems to be the main problem: we are losing privacy today but we will suffer most of the consequences tomorrow. So most of us are not aware of the real cost we're paying and unable to make an informed decision.

Welcome to democracy, where an individual with zero understanding of an issue can vote on it and is legally entitled to have their opinion taken seriously.

It really does feel like there should be some kind of aptitude test involved in getting a vote, doesn't it?

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

#522

Post by skinnymuch »

esyir wrote: post #492
lastpingstandin wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd think single source vs fleet of disparate services is a bigger concern. If I have to track and maintain 10 subscription services to get the stuff I want, I'd rather just pirate it, the inconvenience factor is too high otherwise. Look at music, this seems solved there.

If Spotify was $50 or $75 a month a lot more people would not be paying and do things illegally. Can’t blame just fragmentation.

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

#523

Post by homonculus1 »

hharlequin wrote: post #521
akamaozu wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to democracy, where an individual with zero understanding of an issue can vote on it and is legally entitled to have their opinion taken seriously.

It really does feel like there should be some kind of aptitude test involved in getting a vote, doesn't it?

We need to require at least some minimal standard. A common-sense starting point would be literacy...

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

#524

Post by BoorishBears »

johnny22 wrote: post #491
ianmcgowan wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I in fact do pay for fastmail.

You and the vast minority of internet users.

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

#525

Post by BoorishBears »

pmontra wrote: post #458
ianmcgowan wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

$5 for a tracking free Google, including no Google ads on any site? Maybe. But then it would be $5 to any other tracking network and there will probably be some other tracking with no opt out. I'll be still running adblockers and privacy extensions, so paying is pointless.

Ha, case in point. A technical person talking themselves out of a hypothetical situation where they pay, now imagine everyone else.

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

#526

Post by 0xffff2 »

milesskorpen wrote: post #181
matty22 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Recaptcha gets the ax due to CCPA, the internet will be better off for it.

There needs to be some way to identify non-humans and/or malicious actors.

Malicious actors? Yes. Non-humans? No. If my bot is playing by the same rules a human would, what do you care as a website operator?

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

#527

Post by playpause »

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…

> 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

This is simply not true. When informed about it, a clear majority of people would prefer not to be surveilled, and are uncomfortable with unknown third parties having profiles on them, ads following them around the internet, etc.

The fact that these people continue to use these services anyway (even after being informed) is not a sign that they are 'fine' with it. It is because they have no choice. Even as an engineer, I've found it unfeasibly difficult to avoid being surveilled while continuing to live a normal life. For most people it's a non-starter. They have no choice.

Freedom to choose is essential to a free market. Regulation, done well, can increase market freedom.

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

#528

Post by MKinley »

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…

One option I also think we are forgetting, Services like ProtonMail and Tutanota. Both are private and encrypted, both are free (with an option to pay for more services). These services are out there, but general knowledge of them is not so high. I believe more users would switch to them if they knew about them. My own parents came to me asking if there was something they could do after being creeped out/scared by big techs privacy invasive tracking and stalking. They weren't aware of the availability of other services and yet they went looking when it got bad enough. How much sooner for others if they were aware of these alternative services? We could all argue back and forth about both sides, but I believe that both sides would be truly surprised about what would actually happen.

edit: typos

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

#529

Post by phlakaton »

saagarjha wrote: post #470
nickodell wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do. What's the practical difference between these two sc…

The second one has a much higher barrier for users, as they now need to hand over their credit card information.

Only if that's how you design your onboarding flow. It's for your company's convenience to do it that way, though, not necessarily the user's.

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

#530

Post by cameronbrown »

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.

Maybe. I'm just saying this is where expectations lie - including my own. Maybe I'm naive, I don't know.

From my conversations with Googlers at least, it does seem they're extremely careful about insider threats.

Post reply on HN