31–40 of 353 posts
I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…
Yep, we got the same. Seriously unethical behavior.
Please explain why this is unethical. The worst case is that you’re simply subject to the law. Presumably you’re abiding by the law. edit: I'm playing devil's advocate. I think the law sucks, the study is weird, and I empathize directly with the blog author. That said, downvoting to 'disagree' without explaining your reasoning is below the grade of this fine institution.
I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…
I agree that you were wronged by these so-called ‘researchers’, but it’s also tragic that our legal systems are so bad that everyone fears them. The legal system should be a low-stress, reliable, and predictable way to avoid or reduce conflict, instead of a weapon of terror.
IRB does allow for deception, just to be clear. Its annoying, but sometimes that's what's needed to get genuine responses. HOWEVER, the hoops the team needed to do to justify its use here was very poorly executed.
I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…
I don't understand why you reacted so strongly. I feel like it's not a big deal to receive a message like that; what am I missing?
Adding something about a timeframe and quoting the law clearly signals legal troubles. I would have 'reacted strongly' too.
[0] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/types/sole-proprietorsh...
I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…
I don't understand why you reacted so strongly. I feel like it's not a big deal to receive a message like that; what am I missing?
I'm the person who wrote that blog post. I got an email from a fake person in France who asked several questions about my small social media site's CCPA compliance, then ended the letter with: > I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code. I thought I was about to be sued by someone who was the equivalent of a…
I don't understand why you reacted so strongly. I feel like it's not a big deal to receive a message like that; what am I missing?
I wonder why they d use a french as a hypothetical privacy nazi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain why this is unethical. The worst case is that you’re simply subject to the law. Presumably you’re abiding by the law. edit: I'm playing devil's advocate. I think the law sucks, the study is weird, and I empathize directly with the blog author. That said, downvoting to 'disagree' without explaining your reasoning is below the grade of this fine institution.
From the perspective of someone not living in the US, how on earth would one be expected to know what "the law" in California is?