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

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

#301

Post by loup-vaillant » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:53 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…

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours.

Not if the thing I value is my personal data. Because I, as a typical short sighted consumer, will consistently underestimate the value of my data, as well as how my data affects those around me (extreme case: my data is my social graph, which you can use to reconstruct the social graph of my acquaintances).

If I don't know the actual value of what I am giving up, I am naturally going to get swindled.

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

#302

Post by Steven_Vellon » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #133

Steven_Vellon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was an easily defined definition of "respecting users data" the we wouldn't be in this situation. Plenty of people think putting a clause in the EULA that says user data can be monetized is being respectful of user data, but this is often prohibited by law. Plenty of people don't think having a tool to dump user data is necessary to respect user data.

> Plenty of people think putting a clause in the EULA that says user data can be monetized is being respectful of user data Do they really believe that, though? I always thought they were just thinking it was just legal cover to allow them to do whatever they want with the data. Respect doesn't enter into it.

What's wrong with it? The End user license agreement is the document explicitly dedicated to explaining how the interaction between the user and the software will work. If a company explains how the data will be used and the user consents to that agreement what is the issue? I don't doubt that there are people that don't bother to read the EULA but thats a leading-a-horse-to-water situation.

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

#303

Post by newfangle » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:59 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…

>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?

Is this a real question?

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

#304

Post by debatem1 » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

1000units wrote: post #291

debatem1 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, maybe I'm asking questions too close to my own viewpoint. Let me ask some follow-up questions that are a bit further out. Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? Would you approve of a law banning the…

> Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? No. People are entitled to speech. > Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? No. Making money is Virtuous and Good. Acquiring money by theft, deceit, etc is not. > Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? No. Charity is fine. In the cases peop…

Ok, so you would forbid online advertising, but not advertising overall. What would you allow/ban and why (assuming that viewpoint is germane to this conversation)?

I'm not sure what you mean by "at any earlier time". Can you clarify?

You mention predatory sign-ons. In this context it seems you view the data-for-service trade as predatory. Do you think it would remain predatory if it were explicitly priced-- eg, if Google offered you a $5 credit on a $5 service for use of your data?

Would you approve of a law explicitly allowing blood-for-service or similar?

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

#305

Post by diffeomorphism » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #128

noodlesUK wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your experience buying things internationally from smaller websites, that surprises me greatly. When I purchase items from US retailers in European countries, before the item arrives, I get a little slip to pay the duties on the item. If I don’t pay, the item doesn’t arrive.

Duty is imposed at the country level. In my country things we make have additional duty but products we don't are not. I would assume importing milk might trigger 50% duty but receiving a dnakit from 23andme wouldn't.

No, you and the sellers are just committing tax fraud at a small enough level that nobody cares:

https://www.sars.gov.za/ClientSegments/Customs-Excise/Duties...

Amazon is too large to get away with that and hence charges you sales tax. The "small shops" can get away with it, but it is still illegal.

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

#306

Post by scarejunba » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:59 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…

Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data.

Lots of us feel that the data thing should be allowed. That's all.

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

#307

Post by brailsafe » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 10:00 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…

I think the intention is to decrease the opacity of 'free' services, with the awareness that most people using most free services don't or can't know what happens with it and what is collected. Money is not personal data, likewise almost anything else is not personal data, and there should be more legal protections in llace imo to protect a naive person's ability to limit the propagation of it, or hold companies accountable. If most people knew how any givem system worked, then software engineers wouldn't make as much. It's not a clear cut transaction when the cost is "any amount of data we can collect about you and sell to anyone for any price in exchange for this specific service we provide amd cam take away at any moment". That's a bullshit transaction.

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

#308

Post by lacampbell » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #215

pitaj wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the point is that it's important to address and control for all of the consequences of policy - including the unintended ones.

Sure, but then you need to demonstrate real (not just imagined) harm. GDPR doesn't seem to have caused the world to end. Vanishingly few people actually followed through on the whining and quit serving the EU. From the perspective of ordinary users, GDPR was a pretty successful law with no real downsides. Businesses have to be more careful with data, that's about it.

In regards to the GDPR, I imagine most people continue to ignore the laws of jurisdictions they have no presence in. If they have an EU presence they will follow EU laws, same as if they had a presence in China or North Korea.

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

#309

Post by whatshisface » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #275

m-p-3 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

As opposed to what, treating everybody badly? McDonalds discriminates between people who can afford a Big Mac and people who can't, and that's not a problem.

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

#310

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

1000units wrote: post #291

debatem1 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, maybe I'm asking questions too close to my own viewpoint. Let me ask some follow-up questions that are a bit further out. Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? Would you approve of a law banning the…

> Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? No. People are entitled to speech. > Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? No. Making money is Virtuous and Good. Acquiring money by theft, deceit, etc is not. > Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? No. Charity is fine. In the cases peop…

> > Would you approve of a law forbidding the use of cameras in public places?

> This one is difficult. At any earlier time, no.

I suspect the best solution here is laws around how the data from public cameras is stored and processed. Cameras that store a temporary loop of data, delete it after a day or two, and don't upload that data to the cloud are one thing. Cameras that upload every image to the cloud for permanent storage where face recognition software is used to track you movement around the city or your emotional state throughout the day are a different beast.