Why use an abbreviation in the title when it wasn't used in the latimes.com headline? 'CA' on its own is ambiguous.
Submitted title was "CA is rewriting the rules of the internet. Businesses are scrambling to keep up". We've changed it now.
CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
51–60 of 129 posts
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#52I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
Never understood the cookie popups mess. I remember back in the ages of internet explorer it showed a popup when a site tried to use cookies, why do the sites need to implement the cookie popups rather than let the users configure it in their browsers?
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#53> 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.
Policy trade-off. Small businesses can only do limited damage from a consumer privacy perspective. Navigating policy for small businesses can be toxic as they don't have teams of high powered lawyers, and considering California's startup industry the last thing policymakers want is to hurt small businesses. This is a compromise.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#54I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
Never understood the cookie popups mess. I remember back in the ages of internet explorer it showed a popup when a site tried to use cookies, why do the sites need to implement the cookie popups rather than let the users configure it in their browsers?
Because browsers make it an all or nothing setting (all, 1st party, none) and there are many more combinations. On top of that, the laws are there to prevent companies from tracking people at will, and the DNT header that was supposed to make that an easy browser setting completely failed.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#55I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
Agreed — CCPA makes the same primary mistake as GDPR, which is that while the spirit of the law (protecting users’ privacy) is reasonable, the ultimate consequence just ends up being bombarding users with popups, a worse UX for basically everyone.
To me, this indicates that the drafters of the law probably didn’t really think it through.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#56I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
This is not a good thing indeed, because it's terribly naive. Passing a law that more or less forbid huge companies the very same activity that gets them the bread and butter. What are they expecting to happen? That the companies will surrender their business, just as that?
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#57I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
A fundamental problem with CCPA (and GDPR and other similar state legislation) is the definition of personal information.
For example, IP addresses are not really personal, but including them as such creates layers of ambiguity that undermines other positive aspects of the law. It's the typical outcome of politicians not really knowing the domain they're affecting.
Also what's especially interesting is that CCPA was effectively bankrolled by a single person, which should raise some alarms about political power used by the people.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#58This article makes it sound like this entire industry wasn’t deliberately set up and developed by corporations for years. They know exactly what they’re doing and they know exactly how to turn the whole thing off.
What entire industry? The internet affects everyone.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#59I'm not confident that this is a good thing after the mess that resulted me in having to navigate dozens of cookie popups on most days.
This is not a good thing indeed, because it's terribly naive. Passing a law that more or less forbid huge companies the very same activity that gets them the bread and butter. What are they expecting to happen? That the companies will surrender their business, just as that?
Fundamentally, the solution to cookie warning spam is simple: Stop letting these companies disclaim their way out of unethical business practices. Start making those business practices illegal and shut down companies built around them.
Companies built on surveillance capitalism should be shut down. Full stop.
Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think you are confusing individual cities with the state as a whole. This is also far more of an issue with lack of resources rather than a general policy.
San Francisco's homeless issue has a lot to do with the fact that tolerance is not equally spread across the nation. If every city was equally tolerant, there wouldn't necessarily be more homeless total, but they'd be more evenly spread out across the nation. As it is, they tend to migrate here from other places.
That said, I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and seen human poop on the sidewalks maybe twice.