User Controls

Lanny, what is your stance on The California Consumer Privacy Act?

  1. #1
    Ajax African Astronaut [rumor the placative aphakia]
    Is this a safe place?

    https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/california-data-privacy-law-ccpa-do-not-sell-changes.html
  2. #2
    iam_asiam68 African Astronaut
    every post made here, Lanny has the rights to them if one is an idea that becomes a real money maker. i doubt anyone signed an agreement giving their ideas away, so a patent attorney would clear that up. but what can happen, by Lanny's own actions, if he sells this site, he also sells his right and our rights to the buyer. and then the issues really begin to compound!!
  3. #3
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Naturally Camouflaged [my scoffingly uncritical tinning]
    Slate is a jedi magazine - for jedis by jedis.

    I have experience with GDPR and the accompanying national Data Protection Acts, along which lines this Californian law is modeled. Once you get past the scaremongering it is a generally a fair and effective piece of legislation that I would not like to see us have to do without.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  4. #4
    Ajax African Astronaut [rumor the placative aphakia]
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Slate is a jedi magazine - for jedis by jedis.

    Never heard of it before today. It was in business top stories when I was checking my stocks. Take your pick of your fave flave.

    Lol at Jedis.
  5. #5
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by Ajax Is this a safe place?

    https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/california-data-privacy-law-ccpa-do-not-sell-changes.html

    The CCPA will only apply to businesses that earn more than $25 million in gross revenue

    lul
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  6. #6
    Ajax African Astronaut [rumor the placative aphakia]
    Originally posted by aldra lul

    Question stands. Lanny has been pimping us out and, as such, has become a high roller.
  7. #7
    Lanny is the son of Jeff Hunter there I said it
  8. #8
    Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    Originally posted by aldra lul

    This lol, NiS has strictly negative revenue.

    I generally agree with soy, privacy legislation is a pain in the ass to comply with but it does more good than harm ultimately. Contingent on how it plays out in court.
  9. #9
    Originally posted by Lanny This lol, NiS has strictly negative revenue.

    on purpose
  10. #10
    Cheyes Houston
    Originally posted by Lanny This lol, NiS has strictly negative revenue.

    I generally agree with soy, privacy legislation is a pain in the ass to comply with but it does more good than harm ultimately. Contingent on how it plays out in court.

    The cookies thing is fucking retarded
  11. #11
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Naturally Camouflaged [my scoffingly uncritical tinning]
    Originally posted by Cheyes The cookies thing is fucking retarded

    The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.

    You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.

    Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  12. #12
    Fuck Your World African Astronaut
    So gen Z and beyond r ok.. The rest of the generations can suck it?
  13. #13
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.

    You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.

    Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be.

    should've just been a ban on multi-domain cookies but I'm guessing that industry lobbying gutted it in the same way they did the 'do not track' standard
  14. #14
    Originally posted by Lanny This lol, NiS has strictly negative revenue.

    brand this place as a charity and ask for donations.
  15. #15
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country The thing about the Cookies directive is the awesomely ignorant way it was implemented. It was supposed to discourage the likes of Adobe, Oracle and Google tracking everything you do. You legally require positive "opt-in" informed consent to allow tracking cookies from those jerks. And users are supposed to be able to "opt-out" without any penalty or degradation of experience.

    You are legally allowed to set cookies for legitimate, necessary and proportionate purposes, such as remembering your user's language preference or for remembering login session IDs, even without seeking consent.

    Of course the way it was implemented was that every site just stuck a "this site requires cookies, by using it you agree to this" message up. Which seeks neither informed consent, allows an opt-out, or achieves any positive end at all. In fact it has zero legal impact at all. It's a mess and a disgrace and organisations that do it should be made change - but they won't be.

    i choose not to choose by ublocking the whole thing. works 8 out of 10 times.
  16. #16
    Ajax African Astronaut [rumor the placative aphakia]
    The Zuckerberg hearings are all we needed to see to understand how disconnected lawmakers are from the digital universe.
  17. #17
    Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    Originally posted by aldra should've just been a ban on multi-domain cookies but I'm guessing that industry lobbying gutted it in the same way they did the 'do not track' standard

    Tracking for ad-targeting isn't so much a case of multi-domain cookies (e.g. a cookie which is set on one domain and sent to others) but cookies on cross-domain subresources e.g. you link an image from facebook, your browser sends the standard facebook tracking cookie when it requests it from an FB domain, facebook now owns your soul and tries to sell you back dildos. There's only one domain actually involved in that request. And there are valid use cases for something like that (e.g. a common usecase is to have a CDN on a different domain than your webserver, CDN needs some cookie for AB testing or something, webserver has to set it) and legislating against that particular tracking mechanism would make tracking a bit more annoying but ultimately it's immaterial.

    I mean when somebody puts that faggy "like on facebook" button on their page they're loading FB javascript and cookie or no, FB owns you. Adding CORS-like restrictions on sub-resources like images doesn't really matter because hosts have already elected to give that data away. I mean it astounds me that major corporations are willing to give this much trust/data to FB for free but the fundamental issue is with hosts giving this data up, not with the particular mechanism the use to do it. If they want to you can't really stop them in a technical capacity, hosts can just email logs or any other data visible to them to FB or google or whoever and it's basically the same thing. Issues with ambiguity aside, the GDPR approach of defininging general classes like "data processors" seems like the right way to go so you can try to pursue the spirit of the legislation in court rather than making it into a game of "how can I find another mechanism of doing the same thing that's going to be even harder for a technically ignorant legislative body to understand".
  18. #18
    frala Tuskegee Airman
    You have a faggy like button

  19. #19
    Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  20. #20
    Fuck Your World African Astronaut
    Originally posted by frala You have a foggy like bottom


    fixed
Jump to Top