10 ms·
It's plenty reasonable to be skeptical of the public utterances of CEOs, but it's not necessarily true that his words are hollow because his company is not curr
by papeda 8y ago
It's plenty reasonable to be skeptical of the public utterances of CEOs, but it's not necessarily true that his words are hollow because his company is not currently compliant with the law he's proposing. As long as competitors are free to ignore this proposed privacy requirement it probably makes no competitive sense for his company to comply with it. In that case, it's perfectly logical to agitate for a law, which would let you adhere to stricter privacy requirements confident that your competition has to do so as well.
- craftyguy 8y agoThis is a classic case of a well established company lobbying for regulations to keep newcomers out of their sector.
- cujo 8y agoHow would this keep newcomers out?
- askafriend 8y agoCost ($$, time, etc) of compliance impacts newcomers more than incumbents.
- craftyguy 8y agoSalesforce relied on things this 'privacy law' would make illegal in order to get where they are today. This law would prevent other companies from following in their footsteps.
- criddell 8y agoYes. We are learning from our mistakes.
- thrav 8y agoThat’s really not true at all. DMP was a very recent acquisition, as was Marketing Cloud and Pardot. Core Salesforce is a company data store often requiring human data input. It’s where your information goes when you fill out a “Contact us” form on somebody’s website.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoAre those things we want other companies to be doing, though?
- Lionsion 8y ago>> Salesforce relied on things this 'privacy law' would make illegal in order to get where they are today. This law would prevent other companies from following in their footsteps. > Are those things we want other companies to be doing, though? Apparently if someone got successful doing something bad once, we're supposed to be OK with people doing that bad thing forever, lest we risk some "regulatory capture" boogeyman. The solution to regulatory capture is an actual solution to regulatory capture, not a general aversion to regulation.
- taysic 8y agoThere is almost no solution to regulatory capture - more gov to solve it does not work in practice, particularly because after these commissions are founded are idealistic principles, the public stops paying attention and often doesn't have the breadth of knowledge to understand how regulations could be used to prevent healthy competition. The way it unfolds, turns out, is very predictable. It limits the tools/services that could otherwise be offered and often keeps progress in that industry frozen in time almost, the existing companies frozen in place too.
- avar 8y agoHow is that relevant? Say a law like this comes into effect, then they'll need to change their practices / delete that data etc. So going forward they won't have that advantage over an upstart, they'll need to compete in the same market.
- woolvalley 8y agoThey have the advantage of size and resources. If the starting table stakes to get started becomes GDPR-style compliance infrastructure that takes 3 engineering man years to implement properly, then new companies will happen less, which means less future competition for the incumbent.
- paulcole 8y ago> Say a law like this comes into effect, then they'll need to change their practices / delete that data etc. Oh honey.
- ubertaco 8y agoSalesforce is a company that operates in Europe. They already have to comply with GDPR (and have already spent tons of dev time on scrambling to comply). They're ready for GDPR, and so they're probably betting they're ready for whatever (likely weaker) US law inspired by GDPR that would come along. Any new competitors, on the other hand (or any non-multinational competitors) would have to scramble and pay heavy costs to "catch up". It's using the legal system as a tool for their competitive advantage -- force everyone to do the thing you're already doing.
- aurailious 8y agoHigher cost to do business by requiring compliance with regulations.
- redbeard0x0a 8y agoI think the cost is small compared to the externalized cost to each person who's data has been leaked, lost or misused.
- wcarron 8y agoOH NO! Someone might lose a few dollars because they can't vacuum up my personal data and sell it for their personal gain! Heaven forbid!
- aurailious 8y agoThank you for your sarcasm, its been very valuable.
- spectrum1234 8y ago^This * 100.
- ameister14 8y agoExcept for the fact that the requirements to become compliant with such a law, including removing past data, could cripple Salesforce
- taysic 8y agoThat almost never happens. It's not in the gov's interest to tank successful companies that employ a bunch of people - and large companies are in the best position to give personal feedback to politicians to customize the process so its particularly easy for them. That's how regulatory capture starts.
- mgleason_3 8y agoA strong law like the GPDR would actually shake things up - a lot. As it is, the large players like Facebook, google, Salesforce and a bunch of others like our banks, credit card companies, internet providers are all extremely well established. A GPDR-like law would open up entirely new ways of doing business partly because these companies could no longer do business the way they are. “Free” services could no longer make their money by selling your data. We could end up with a more “honest” set of services. Like a social network that’s actually free or paid for by individual contributions.
- downandout 8y agoA GPDR-like law would open up entirely new ways of doing business partly because these companies could no longer do business the way they are. “Free” services could no longer make their money by selling your data. You're completely disregarding the fact that it takes significant resources to comply with a law like GDPR. Insurance to defray the costs of potential litigation and fines, development time, ongoing compliance (audits etc.), legal expenses, and on and on. Most startups simply can't afford this. So you may wind up with more "honest" services, but there will be far fewer of them and they'll have more power and leverage than they ever have before because of the lack of competitors and artificial, enormous regulatory barriers to entry. GDPR is a startup killer.
- telchar 8y agoI think you're disregarding that these are huge companies whose business models and moats would be significantly disrupted by a GDPR-like law. To quote GoT, chaos is a ladder. This could help new innovative companies compete, at least in the short term, against these established behemoths.
- downandout 8y agoThis could help new innovative companies compete, at least in the short term, against these established behemoths. Again, most “new innovative” companies can’t afford to comply with laws like GDPR.
- solomatov 8y agoI think at this point, consumer are more interested in their rights being protected than in more competition.
- pathseeker 8y ago> This is a classic case of a well established company lobbying for regulations to keep newcomers out of their sector. No it's not because SF won't be allowed to do it either. It's like a power company advocating for the banning of coal while still using it because its the cheapest option. You can participate in a practice to stay competitive while advocating for the banning of that practice.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- taysic 8y agoThe point is newcomers have a disadvantage against any type of regulation they need to comply to - simply because they often have less funding/resources than a giant company. This happens in practice all the time.
- slg 8y ago>newcomers have a disadvantage against any type of regulation they need to comply to This is unquestionably true, but it is an awful excuse to not enact any regulations. Honestly, what do people expect is the answer if the free market has already shown to fail to address this problem and we are ruling out regulation because is increases the barrier to entry?
- taysic 8y agoI'm not against all regulations - some can be useful - they just need to be implemented with great caution - ideally in a way that is very easy and clear to implement. In theory I don't see how regulations could avoid security breaches anyway (which I think is a greater problem). It'd be interesting to fine large companies with security breaches to encourage better tech, but then they'd never report it.
- barrkel 8y agoSecurity breaches aren't the problem with harvesting private individuals' data. It's a matter of ownership and sovereignty, in the large and small.
- scythe 8y agoRegulations that create positive obligations -- "you must do this" -- create barriers to entry, because it costs money to do that. But I'm not sure it's the same with regulations that create negative obligations, because not doing stuff is usually free, except when the negative obligation is actually a positive obligation "to prevent xyz".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nnutter 8y agoNot only that but increased regulation often favors incumbents because it increases the cost of competing which has a higher burden on a lean, new entrant.
- yuhong 8y agoPersonally, my favorite is Larry and Sergey. I wrote an essay about one problem: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozilla-essay-final.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozi...