4 ms·
I am not an expert bill reader but seems like this loophole is covered as there is another point that says : "(ii) is not substantially owned, oper ated, or co
by codegeek 8y ago
I am not an expert bill reader but seems like this loophole is covered as there is another point that says :
"(ii) is not substantially owned, oper
ated, or controlled by a person, partner
ship, or corporation that does not meet the
6 requirements under clause"
- r00fus 8y agoContracting it out still seems to bypass the regulation
- setr 8y agoTbh thats still a better outcome than the status quo isn’t it: a single hack is now limited in damage, and multiple are required to do the equivalent of todays scenarios
- CamelCaseName 8y agoWhat if everyone contracts out the data collection to a single party? Only giving the data a larger exposure. I'm really glad this is coming to light and I hope it passes. It will be very interesting to see how companies try to avoid it, but at first glance, it seems well thought out.
- kissickas 8y agoIf that company has 1,000,000 or more customers' data, then they're no longer exempt. Maybe you came in after the OOP did their edit.
- hessenwolf 8y ago“Controlled”