Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#61

Post by rudedogg »

dependenttypes wrote: post #46
rudedogg wrote: post #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.

Why is that? Surely if X is bad it should be bad for everyone rather than only for big companies.

> Surely if X is bad it should be bad for everyone rather than only for big companies.

I worry that regulations like GDPR benefit the existing monopolies, and make it too difficult/expensive for startups. The legal ambiguity of it, and the additional software requirements add a lot of roadblocks if you're a small company. I'd rather the burden be limited to established companies (but I guess that isn't quite fair either).

And for small/side projects, I just don't want to worry about this stuff.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#62

Post by manigandham »

r00fus wrote: post #21
derision wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good that one state can force it's hand over the other 49?

This single state contains Silicon Valley and is 14% of the US economy. Jurisdictionally, it could be challenged - but again, a business could just decline to do business with all customers in CA. btw - nothing new here (fta): "Big companies are signing deals with firms that specialize in compliance". Big companies already hire compliance companies for a large number of other regulatory requirements. This is just yet…

That's absolutely meaningless to other states unless majority rule is the way you want to run things.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#63

Post by manigandham »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #59
narag wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What business practices? Cookies aren't just used for ads. You could get rid of adtech and not have any change in cookie notices because of how the laws are written.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#64

Post by ailideex »

oneplane wrote: post #54
dependenttypes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because browsers make it an all or nothing setting (all, 1st party, none) and there are many more combinations.

Browsers can be changed, but instead of picking a reasonable well thought through solution the governments crammed a quite horrible solution through. I honestly don't see how that protects the people who are most vulnerable nor anyone else really.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#65

Post by manigandham »

dependenttypes wrote: post #52
ailideex wrote: post #38

I'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?

People don't understand or care about cookies maintaining state in browsers. It was complete folly for politicians to focus on them instead of actual personal data used.

GDPR rectified some of it but added much more granularity which is why cookie popups have now turned into giant selection windows.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#67

Post by ailideex »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #59
narag wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure most sites that asked me to allow cookies in the past week were not "companies built on surveillance capitalism". Youtube rarely asks me about this and to be quite frank I don't mind adds on youtube nor that they are targeted adds - even if they are rather poorly targeted - I'm not sure why this should be illegal.

I think whatever problems the cookie laws that got us all the popups are trying to solve would be better solved in conjunction with some technical changes. Like I could say in my browser what sort of cookies I allow - or set up some rules. Sure sites can just break the law and disregard this - but they can do it now anyway by just saving cookies even if I click "don't allow" or "decline" on the dumb popups.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#68

Post by lidHanteyk »

narag wrote: post #56
ailideex wrote: post #38

I'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?

Yeah, that's basically how it should happen. In California, there's ample precedent for taking products off of the market when they're shown to harm consumers, and if that happens to kill off manufacturers who aren't diversified, then so be it. Are you really going to be sad if Facebook can't survive CCPA?

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#69

Post by alkonaut »

Regarding the GDPR:

> 95% of users choose to be tracked in exchange for access to websites and services

The GDPR explicitly disallows the practice of conditioning access to a site or service on acceptance. Without that it would be rather useless. Once that bit is also enforced (current fines for violation sadly week focused on poor data safety measures and similar) I think the online ad landscape actually may start to change.

Re: CCPA goes into effect January 1, but nobody’s sure how the new rules work

#70

Post by Rebelgecko »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #68
narag wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, that's basically how it should happen. In California, there's ample precedent for taking products off of the market when they're shown to harm consumers, and if that happens to kill off manufacturers who aren't diversified, then so be it. Are you really going to be sad if Facebook can't survive CCPA?

On the other hand, we also have things like Prop 65 warnings that have become so commonplace that they don't really impart useful information. Any useful signal is totally overwhelmed by noise. Putting the same warning on a restaurant that serves french fries and a pack of cigarettes diminishes the usefulness of the warning (unless parking garages, coffee, and fried food are actually significant carcinogens?)
Post reply on HN