Good.
It's good that one state can force it's hand over the other 49?
We can start the conversation with state usury laws.
CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
41–50 of 129 posts
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#42Why use an abbreviation in the title when it wasn't used in the latimes.com headline? 'CA' on its own is ambiguous.
Because titles here are limited in length to 80 characters.
I would just remove the articles. So my version: "California is rewriting rules of internet. Businesses are scrambling to keep up". Does it look better or worse?
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or backward. Depending on one's view of any particular policy that California does that the other states choose not to.
Typically it is forward. That doesn't mean "better", but it does mean that it is moving things in directions that the rest of the country eventually follows. Can you give an example of something California did that was a move backwards? As in, moving back to a way that we did things in the past but the rest of the country has moved on from?
[dead]
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This single state contains Silicon Valley and is 14% of the US economy california is the sixth largest economy in the world.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive
they aren't but it's misleadingly low statistic. I think la county has something like 38% of the economy of the country.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#45> The CCPA only applies to companies with more than $25 million in revenue or access to the personal information of more than 50,000 people.
This is refreshing, I wish GDPR had a revenue threshold like this.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#46> The CCPA only applies to companies with more than $25 million in revenue or access to the personal information of more than 50,000 people. This is refreshing, I wish GDPR had a revenue threshold like this.
Why is that? Surely if X is bad it should be bad for everyone rather than only for big companies.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The CCPA only applies to companies with more than $25 million in revenue or access to the personal information of more than 50,000 people.
50,000 is not a lot. If you set up a YouTube competitor and the view counter on a video has more than 50,000 views, do you qualify? What if you use cookies? It’s a personal ID of all 50,000 viewers.
Why would you need to use cookies for users that are not logged-in in a youtube clone?
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#48Good.
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#49Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or backward. Depending on one's view of any particular policy that California does that the other states choose not to.
Typically it is forward. That doesn't mean "better", but it does mean that it is moving things in directions that the rest of the country eventually follows. Can you give an example of something California did that was a move backwards? As in, moving back to a way that we did things in the past but the rest of the country has moved on from?
Well, disposing of excrement in the street was a normal part of life in many cities. Now that rules about that are not enforced in California, it's becoming dangerous to simply walk in some parts of it.