Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#271

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

I can't help but view it with disgust just at the headline of having the wrong kind of mentality. It is a spiteful logical fallacy of the worst kind. "Soviets terrified of plan to nuclear first strike whole world - good!" Just because even the vilest foe dislikes it doesn't mean it is a good idea.

The whole article seems to be about shutting down thinking and manipulation via playing with emotions.

I am probably an outlier but I view that as an active sign that is terrible because otherwise they would lead on better points. The article made me /less/ supportive of it. It is perhaps unduly harsh but I would call it an outright propaganda piece not because of the message but how it was delivered.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#272

Post by caconym_ » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #172

nabnob wrote: post #52

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Quoting from this article - https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/28/landmark-california-privac... - Businesses must disclose what information they collect, what business purpose they do so for and any third parties they share that data with. - Businesses would be required to comply with official consumer requests to delete that d…

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

At least in America we already restrict certain types of transactions, e.g. selling illegal and/or restricted drugs is itself generally illegal IIRC. Similarly I'm pretty sure slavery is illegal even if it's entered into voluntarily (please correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not speaking from specific knowledge).

We impose these restrictions for the good of the public. If we decide that exchanging personal data for goods and services should be illegal under certain conditions, I don't see why that's any different than the precedents I mentioned.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#273

Post by m463 » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #256

darawk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…

There's also the dilemma that if you pay for something with a credit card, you have to identify yourself.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#274

Post by buboard » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

briffle wrote: post #111

nabnob wrote: post #52

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Quoting from this article - https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/28/landmark-california-privac... - Businesses must disclose what information they collect, what business purpose they do so for and any third parties they share that data with. - Businesses would be required to comply with official consumer requests to delete that d…

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Jeff Hammerbacher: ‘The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads… That sucks.’ Those best minds are now having to change the way they generate revenue..

Hardly. It doesnt seem the law will affect the business, it will just make the cost of data collection explicit: "Pay $40/month to use facebook or get a free rebate by enabling ads".

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#275

Post by m463 » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #263

darawk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do (or reenable data sharing). That way it feels more tra…

I wonder if that will have unintended consequences.

It might inadvertently assign a price to the data collected.

It also shows a direct discrimination against poor and/or young people who might not afford the service.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#276

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #238

darawk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. The service isn't free. The exchange just isn't money. When money is involve…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#277

Post by buboard » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

morganherlocker wrote: post #75

Lot's of (mis)information floating around regarding CCPA. I recommend taking the time to read the actual text[1]. The text is not particularly long or dense. There has been a lot of speculation about complex compliance procedures, but the main thrust of the bill is to provide users with information about how their data is collected, who it is shared with, and the rights to prevent certain types of selling or sharing…

Yep. This law is nothing like the draconian extremes of GDPR. One can even say it's good because it weeds out the really shady businesses but allows the ad ecosystem to work.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#278

Post by rebuilder » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #172

nabnob wrote: post #52

I see a lot of comments deriding this law, can someone explain to me why these are bad things? Quoting from this article - https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/28/landmark-california-privac... - Businesses must disclose what information they collect, what business purpose they do so for and any third parties they share that data with. - Businesses would be required to comply with official consumer requests to delete that d…

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…

It's not a requirement that services be provided for free. It's an acknowledgment that, if services can't be provided without violating basic human decency, they should not be provided at all.

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#279

Post by javagram » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #110

javagram wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In cases where the Feds have decided there should be a uniform standard, states can’t make their own law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

I don't think that works quite like you think it does. The Federal government generally does not restrict states from making stronger laws than the equivalent Federal law. Take the Federal minimum wage, for instance: they set one level, but states are free to set a higher minimum wage. This case follows the same pattern: whatever meager privacy protections in place at the Federal level will continue to apply, but Cal…

It depends on whether the federal government has decided to preempt or not.

In this case I don’t think there is a national privacy law that preempts CA, but companies are lobbying now for one to be created. I think it would be a good idea, a national sales tax and a national privacy law are a natural fit for the Internet age - needing to know different laws and regulations for 50 states is only going to hurt small businesses and startups.

FTA:

> Since the law passed, tech giants have pulled out their last card: pushing for an overarching federal bill.

> In doing so, the companies would be able to control their messaging through their extensive lobbying efforts, allowing them to push for a weaker statute that would nullify some of the provisions in California’s new privacy law

Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law

#280

Post by buboard » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

throawayuk55po wrote: post #16

We need to have a conversation about jurisdictions in the digital age. The way governments have decided that having a website accessible in a country makes you liable to respect the law of this country is a convulted and hacky notion that has been accepted way too fast. The physical establishment rule was the only sound approach. The fact that some countries started to lose shouldn't have allowed them to rewrite the…

Either jurisdictions will expand to include the entirety of the planet, or they will be abolished.