4 ms·

Another business destroyed due to needless regulations and busy suits.

kennywinker 9y ago
I'm not sure "needless" is the right word here. Even if you think this law is bad, there is clearly a need for data privacy and protection laws. People's reaction to their data being scooped up by Cambridge Analytica just because a facebook friend did a survey proves the need. What CA did was probably legal, but in most people's minds should not have been legal.
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  > there is clearly a need for data privacy and protection laws Is there? What if people just accepted responsibility for carelessly handing out information to third parties? Certainly there is much more individuals can do to protect themselves before the government steps in and slaughters small business like the EU did. > but in most people's minds should not have been legal Do people think a company selling user data to another company should be illegal? Or are most people more concerned with the relation said company has with Russia, and their potential involvement in influencing the US election? I think it's the latter. And certainly there should be laws about data transactions involving the state's democratic security.
  - _o_ 9y ago
    Yes people do think, that selling/collecting their personal data to other companies into their disadvantage should be illegal.
  - kennywinker 9y ago
    if your business isn’t viable without respecting some basic privacy rules, you should not be in business - big or small. > What if people just accepted responsibility for carelessly handing out information to third parties? Without being legally compelled to, few companies have been forthcoming about providing users with information about what they are disclosing and when. Consent is being given, but not informed consent.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > People's reaction to their data being scooped up by Cambridge Analytica just because a facebook friend did a survey proves the need. What CA did was probably legal, but in most people's minds should not have been legal. It's not _their_ data. This is the part that drives me nuts. When you give something to facebook, it's no longer yours and you loose control of it. It's like this for _everything_. That nude you send your SO? It's out of your control. That nude your SO took of you? It's even less in your control. If you don't have a service agreement with someone, it's not your data. It will never be your data. Stop pretending. It's dangerous to let people think they control data they hand to other people. They don't. They never will. Why perpetuate the illusion?
  - kennywinker 9y ago
    And yet we have “revenge porn” laws that say there are things your SO can and cannot do with that photo. If I put my money in the bank, that does not actually make it the bank’s money. They have the right to do things with it - invest it, loan it, but there is an agreement that it has not been perminantly given. That agreement is backed by consumer protection, insurance, etc. and the bank, no matter how much they would like to, can’t make me sign a EULA that makes my deposits theirs.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      > And yet we have “revenge porn” laws that say there are things your SO can and cannot do with that photo. Which are mainly extensions of harassment law (again, not something you control, but a penalty after action). > If I put my money in the bank, that does not actually make it the bank’s money. You also have an agreement with the bank as such. If I just gave it to some guy on the corner (or PayPal) then, you know, whatever is just as possible.
      - kennywinker 9y ago
        > not something you control, but a penalty after action I’m fine with punishing companies after they violate data protection/privacy laws. > You also have an agreement with the bank as such I’ve not read many bank agreements but I don’t believe they say anything like “the bank can’t take my money to the casino and put it all on black”. Yet if they do that they’ve broken the law.

I'm not sure "needless" is the right word here. Even if you think this law is bad, there is clearly a need for data privacy and protection laws. People's reaction to their data being scooped up by Cambridge Analytica just because a facebook friend did a survey proves the need. What CA did was probably legal, but in most people's minds should not have been legal.

lwansbrough 9y ago
> there is clearly a need for data privacy and protection laws Is there? What if people just accepted responsibility for carelessly handing out information to third parties? Certainly there is much more individuals can do to protect themselves before the government steps in and slaughters small business like the EU did. > but in most people's minds should not have been legal Do people think a company selling user data to another company should be illegal? Or are most people more concerned with the relation said company has with Russia, and their potential involvement in influencing the US election? I think it's the latter. And certainly there should be laws about data transactions involving the state's democratic security.
- _o_ 9y ago
  Yes people do think, that selling/collecting their personal data to other companies into their disadvantage should be illegal.
- kennywinker 9y ago
  if your business isn’t viable without respecting some basic privacy rules, you should not be in business - big or small. > What if people just accepted responsibility for carelessly handing out information to third parties? Without being legally compelled to, few companies have been forthcoming about providing users with information about what they are disclosing and when. Consent is being given, but not informed consent.
jimktrains2 9y ago
> People's reaction to their data being scooped up by Cambridge Analytica just because a facebook friend did a survey proves the need. What CA did was probably legal, but in most people's minds should not have been legal. It's not _their_ data. This is the part that drives me nuts. When you give something to facebook, it's no longer yours and you loose control of it. It's like this for _everything_. That nude you send your SO? It's out of your control. That nude your SO took of you? It's even less in your control. If you don't have a service agreement with someone, it's not your data. It will never be your data. Stop pretending. It's dangerous to let people think they control data they hand to other people. They don't. They never will. Why perpetuate the illusion?
- kennywinker 9y ago
  And yet we have “revenge porn” laws that say there are things your SO can and cannot do with that photo. If I put my money in the bank, that does not actually make it the bank’s money. They have the right to do things with it - invest it, loan it, but there is an agreement that it has not been perminantly given. That agreement is backed by consumer protection, insurance, etc. and the bank, no matter how much they would like to, can’t make me sign a EULA that makes my deposits theirs.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    > And yet we have “revenge porn” laws that say there are things your SO can and cannot do with that photo. Which are mainly extensions of harassment law (again, not something you control, but a penalty after action). > If I put my money in the bank, that does not actually make it the bank’s money. You also have an agreement with the bank as such. If I just gave it to some guy on the corner (or PayPal) then, you know, whatever is just as possible.
    - kennywinker 9y ago
      > not something you control, but a penalty after action I’m fine with punishing companies after they violate data protection/privacy laws. > You also have an agreement with the bank as such I’ve not read many bank agreements but I don’t believe they say anything like “the bank can’t take my money to the casino and put it all on black”. Yet if they do that they’ve broken the law.