4 ms·

A 5 point break down is available here [1] I need to read the actual bill closer but I would want political campaigns, charities, and PACs, subject to it as we

A 5 point break down is available here [1] I need to read the actual bill closer but I would want political campaigns, charities, and PACs, subject to it as well. It is depressing how many "protection" bills exclude political committees and related PACs. [1] https://iapp.org/news/a/top-five-operational-impacts-of-cacpa-part-1-determining-if-youre-a-business-collecting-or-selling-consumers-personal-information/ https://iapp.org/news/a/top-five-operational-impacts-of-cacp...

Bizarro 8y ago
It is depressing how many "protection" bills exclude political committees and related PACs. That's because they're quasi-government entities or related, and above the fray.
- gt_ 8y ago
  > That’s because they’re quasi-government entities or related, and above the fray. No, they’re not. If anything, the distinction should be more clear for these entities than other private businesses who could at least be contracted by the government. Political campaigns are entirely private marketing arrangements. The extent to which they are “quasi-government” should be perfectly obvious in light of their intentions, which is to become elected in the future. Even if the candidate is serving in office, that office’s duties and the campaign they run are separate projects. There is no blurry line here.
  - yspeak 8y ago
    Oh my. Not correct. Participation in democracy is not quasi-governmental.
- r00fus 8y ago
  PACs are not quasi governmental by any means.
munchbunny 8y ago
Reading through an actual breakdown of the bill... I have to admit I'm not a fan. Most specifically, I preferred the construction of GDPR over this one because it was more careful with its definitions where the ban wasn't on selling the data itself, it was on using and sharing data for purposes beyond the scope of the service the business provides. It's an important distinction because Facebook and Google don't really sell your data per se, they sell you a service that does heuristic targeting for you based on their data. A small component of that product lets you use some shared data to track things like conversions, but that's not core of the objection to how Facebook does advertising.

Bizarro 8y ago

It is depressing how many "protection" bills exclude political committees and related PACs. That's because they're quasi-government entities or related, and above the fray.

gt_ 8y ago
> That’s because they’re quasi-government entities or related, and above the fray. No, they’re not. If anything, the distinction should be more clear for these entities than other private businesses who could at least be contracted by the government. Political campaigns are entirely private marketing arrangements. The extent to which they are “quasi-government” should be perfectly obvious in light of their intentions, which is to become elected in the future. Even if the candidate is serving in office, that office’s duties and the campaign they run are separate projects. There is no blurry line here.
- yspeak 8y ago
  Oh my. Not correct. Participation in democracy is not quasi-governmental.
r00fus 8y ago
PACs are not quasi governmental by any means.

munchbunny 8y ago

Reading through an actual breakdown of the bill... I have to admit I'm not a fan. Most specifically, I preferred the construction of GDPR over this one because it was more careful with its definitions where the ban wasn't on selling the data itself, it was on using and sharing data for purposes beyond the scope of the service the business provides. It's an important distinction because Facebook and Google don't really sell your data per se, they sell you a service that does heuristic targeting for you based on their data. A small component of that product lets you use some shared data to track things like conversions, but that's not core of the objection to how Facebook does advertising.