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

121–129 of 129 posts

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

#121

Post by JadeNB »

manigandham wrote: post #107
JadeNB wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Well, but…

Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves? Should we start banning what people can share on social media too for their own protection? Also not everyone can pay for content so you're punishing people who can least afford it by having direct payment be the only way forward. Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws.

> Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws.

All laws remove somebody's freedom and somebody's opportunity, so either this argument is flawed or it indicates that we shouldn't have any laws.

I'm not a maximalist in allowing people to choose everything—the very notion of inalienable rights indicates something that a person cannot give up, not even by choice—but, even if I were, the problem with the current model isn't that I don't like the particular trade-offs people are making (though I don't), but that people aren't aware of those trade-offs. That, and the unfortunate confluence of companies' lack of desire to educate customers and customers' lack of desire to be educated, means that we're not really in a situation of informed choice.

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

#122

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

alkonaut wrote: post #116
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, man. As you mentioned, all of the people who implement or enforce GDPR compliance seem to think that "our business model relies on ads" is a sufficient reason to require tracking. Maybe the regulators are just biding their time before pouncing, but I'm not sure why they'd want to do that or what they're waiting for after a year and a half. It seems more likely that GDPR as an ad industry killer was just a pi…

The wording was very clearly made to avoid any doubt about “we need to track people to survive on ads”. As I said I think it’s sad that so far the fines have been for data security and not yet for tracking-ads-without-opt-in. I really do hope regulators will take a few high profile sites and make an example with a massive fine for blatant violations. The rule is: if I visit a site then tracking is OFF until I switch…

The basis in GDPR I've seen people use for your position is that consent must be "freely given", and consent isn't freely given if my other option is not using the site. The line of argument seems pretty sketchy on its face; can it really be true that my consent to an employment contract isn't "freely given" because my other option is not taking the job? It's certainly not clearly made to avoid doubt.

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

#123

Post by erik_seaberg »

elygre wrote: post #113
erik_seaberg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR has a lot of burdensome requirements, like hiring a commissar and multi-month government review periods before features launches. Do not bet 21M USD that merely deleting cookies and logs will get you anywhere near compliance.

> multi-month government review Can you explain this a bit more?

It's still extremely vague how many releases will require the eight-week review with six-week extension in https://gdpr-info.eu/art-36-gdpr/, but this is the kind of friction and cost they're imposing even on groups who aren't doing anything bad.

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

#124

Post by manigandham »

JadeNB wrote: post #121
manigandham wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves? Should we start banning what people can share on social media too for their own protection? Also not everyone can pay for content so you're punishing people who can least afford it by having direct payment be the only way forward. Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws.

> Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws. All laws remove somebody's freedom and somebody's opportunity, so either this argument is flawed or it indicates that we shouldn't have any laws. I'm not a maximalist in allowing people to choose everything—the very notion of inalienable rights indicates something that a person cannot give up, not even by choice—but, even if I were, the problem…

Privacy isn't a singular action and should be a choice, which is a fundamental part of this legislation.

If you're talking about criminal laws then those are designed around harm and the greater good. There's no harm here because it's up to the individual, allows them to gain value from content, and their decision doesn't affect anyone else.

Informed choice is something else entirely, but people go throughout the day making choices out of complete ignorance and that alone isn't a valid reason for preventing their freedom. Considering the relatively trivial risk, this falls well under personal responsibility. I encourage more education around privacy but am absolutely against making the choice for them, because that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

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

#125

Post by Thiez »

manigandham wrote: post #117
alkonaut wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely think that site owners and visitors should not be allowed to enter an agreement where content is provided based on selling PII of the visitor. The reason is simple: the visitor can’t be properly made aware of what they are actually paying. So it should simply be banned. Yes, at the expense of maybe a majority of content online disappearing. And yes at the expense of people who can’t afford to pay for con…

No thanks, that sounds absolutely terrible. I, and billions of others on the planet, prefer to make our own choices.

You are still allowed to consent to tracking cookies under the GDPR, so nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to. The difference is that you now have a choice, companies are no longer allowed to make that choice for you. What is so terrible about that?

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

#126

Post by Thiez »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #122
alkonaut wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wording was very clearly made to avoid any doubt about “we need to track people to survive on ads”. As I said I think it’s sad that so far the fines have been for data security and not yet for tracking-ads-without-opt-in. I really do hope regulators will take a few high profile sites and make an example with a massive fine for blatant violations. The rule is: if I visit a site then tracking is OFF until I switch…

The basis in GDPR I've seen people use for your position is that consent must be "freely given", and consent isn't freely given if my other option is not using the site. The line of argument seems pretty sketchy on its face; can it really be true that my consent to an employment contract isn't "freely given" because my other option is not taking the job? It's certainly not clearly made to avoid doubt.

There are plenty of things that you cannot consent to under various circumstances. As an extreme example you cannot freely give consent to become a slave no matter how much you would like to (except by going to prison in a certain well known country north of Mexico, I suppose). In many cases you cannot consent to intimate acts with authority figures (e.g. boss, teacher, prison guards). I think in the case of the GDPR the desire was for consumers to be able to make a choice about their data, but such a choice would be meaningless if websites were allowed to make a "click here to consent, or here to close this browser tab" popup, and the "cookie law" shows that this likely the approach that 95%+ of websites would have taken. The cookie popups have shown quite clearly the balance of power between consumers and websites: website owners know consumers will get the exact same deal (accept or fuck off) everywhere else, so the consumers have no real power in this "negotiation". The definition of "freely given" consent in the context of the GDPR was probably written the way it is to correct for this power imbalance.

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

#127

Post by manigandham »

Thiez wrote: post #125
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thanks, that sounds absolutely terrible. I, and billions of others on the planet, prefer to make our own choices.

You are still allowed to consent to tracking cookies under the GDPR, so nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to. The difference is that you now have a choice, companies are no longer allowed to make that choice for you. What is so terrible about that?

Please re-read the comment chain. You're either missing context or accidentally replying to wrong post.

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

#128

Post by bestnameever »

JadeNB wrote: post #101
bestnameever wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. would switching to non-personalized advertisements without taking additional steps support the website enough? Maybe but its hard to say one way or the other without looking at th…

> Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Well, but…

> Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal!

Is that what the consumer wants? Also - is depriving services to those who aren't able to pay the fee to participate the right thing to do when they don't mind something like privacy focused advertisements?

Judging by all the people unwilling to purchase Youtube Premium I would say no.

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

#129

Post by oneplane »

dependenttypes wrote: post #119
ailideex wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The DNT header is yet another way for sites to track you. I am glad it failed. And clicking decline on cookie banners or your unique combination on the multiple choice cookie disclaimers wont allow sites to track you?

Certainly it will, but I said already that I am against cookie banners.

Keep in mind that cookie banners are an implementation choice of the website.
Post reply on HN