7 ms·

Phew! That would be a net positive for the world, long term, to bear less of a greasy footprint from american startup antics.

downandout 8y ago
No, it would kill all American software/web startups by limiting them to 999,999 users, unless they have millions of dollars in VC funding that they can use to comply with this law. It would strangle the startup community, as most startups (even those with 1M+ users) can never hope to have the resources to comply. You have to remember that the reason that startups get any funding is because investors hope that they will be highly successful. If there is a guarantee of a huge compliance bill once the company reaches 1M users, far fewer companies will be funded. Getting 999K users, while a milestone, isn't necessarily enough to raise the money necessary to comply with this law.
- coldtea 8y ago
  So no more Facebooks, Tweeters, Ubers, Instagrams, Snapchats, etc? Sign me up!
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That's a non-sequitur response; all of these are VC-funded startups that could easily have paid to comply with this proposal.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      There are (I have reason to believe) plenty of non-VC funded social media apps. Easy to make, and people think they’re going to be as big as Facebook. I think that type of app will still get made, as people who can’t sort out funding are people I don’t expect to know the law.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm sure there are, but those aren't the examples that were just provided!
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Only as much as the parent's argument was a non-sequitur argument. Parent mentioned startups with lim -> 1 million users unable to comply. If they can't find VC money at the million user stage, then perhaps they didn't have a viable model in the first place. (Plus, where all these I mentioned "VC funded" from the first user? If not, the argument holds for them too).
- tptacek 8y ago
  What requirements of this law do you believe would be impracticable to comply with without millions of VC funding?
  - throwawayou812 8y ago
    I'm not GP, but it looks like the more burdensome things are on pages 26-33, and they are too lengthy to post here. I can see compliance costing significant sums that would be out of reach to a typical startup.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Could you be specific about any of the "burdensome" requirements? You don't need to post all of them; I've read the same draft you have.
      - kevinpet 8y ago
        The question is not "is there anything that would clearly be burdensome?", but "am I confident enough that I am complying with these items, as retroactively interpreted by regulators?" You need to pay a lawyer to evaluate that for you, that's the cost, not whoever the bills sponsor says this is intended to target.
        tptacek 8y ago
        Can you cite an example of one of these requirements that you wouldn't be confident in being able to comply with? Also: how much do you think a legal consult costs? For any one item, I think we're talking a couple hundred bucks. Almost all of the language in the section we're referring to applies to just one requirement, which is to make data tech companies retain about consumers available upon request to those consumers. That's something responsible companies already do, many because they're already by regulation required to do so.
        throwawayou812 8y ago
- ryandrake 8y ago
  "It costs money to comply" is a tired argument that gets trotted out every time a new business regulation gets proposed, no matter what the regulation is. All regulations cost money to comply with. Are you arguing against all business regulations? If your problem is actually with the number of users, please propose a specific number of users that would make a better limit. EDIT: This is also the exact same kind of "sky is falling" rhetoric that came with HIPPA. Lo and behold, we still have large and small doctors' offices, and have taken the first steps towards actually protecting customer health records.

downandout 8y ago

No, it would kill all American software/web startups by limiting them to 999,999 users, unless they have millions of dollars in VC funding that they can use to comply with this law. It would strangle the startup community, as most startups (even those with 1M+ users) can never hope to have the resources to comply. You have to remember that the reason that startups get any funding is because investors hope that they will be highly successful. If there is a guarantee of a huge compliance bill once the company reaches 1M users, far fewer companies will be funded. Getting 999K users, while a milestone, isn't necessarily enough to raise the money necessary to comply with this law.

coldtea 8y ago
So no more Facebooks, Tweeters, Ubers, Instagrams, Snapchats, etc? Sign me up!
- tptacek 8y ago
  That's a non-sequitur response; all of these are VC-funded startups that could easily have paid to comply with this proposal.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    There are (I have reason to believe) plenty of non-VC funded social media apps. Easy to make, and people think they’re going to be as big as Facebook. I think that type of app will still get made, as people who can’t sort out funding are people I don’t expect to know the law.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I'm sure there are, but those aren't the examples that were just provided!
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Only as much as the parent's argument was a non-sequitur argument. Parent mentioned startups with lim -> 1 million users unable to comply. If they can't find VC money at the million user stage, then perhaps they didn't have a viable model in the first place. (Plus, where all these I mentioned "VC funded" from the first user? If not, the argument holds for them too).
tptacek 8y ago
What requirements of this law do you believe would be impracticable to comply with without millions of VC funding?
- throwawayou812 8y ago
  I'm not GP, but it looks like the more burdensome things are on pages 26-33, and they are too lengthy to post here. I can see compliance costing significant sums that would be out of reach to a typical startup.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Could you be specific about any of the "burdensome" requirements? You don't need to post all of them; I've read the same draft you have.
    - kevinpet 8y ago
      The question is not "is there anything that would clearly be burdensome?", but "am I confident enough that I am complying with these items, as retroactively interpreted by regulators?" You need to pay a lawyer to evaluate that for you, that's the cost, not whoever the bills sponsor says this is intended to target.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Can you cite an example of one of these requirements that you wouldn't be confident in being able to comply with? Also: how much do you think a legal consult costs? For any one item, I think we're talking a couple hundred bucks. Almost all of the language in the section we're referring to applies to just one requirement, which is to make data tech companies retain about consumers available upon request to those consumers. That's something responsible companies already do, many because they're already by regulation required to do so.
        throwawayou812 8y ago
ryandrake 8y ago
"It costs money to comply" is a tired argument that gets trotted out every time a new business regulation gets proposed, no matter what the regulation is. All regulations cost money to comply with. Are you arguing against all business regulations? If your problem is actually with the number of users, please propose a specific number of users that would make a better limit. EDIT: This is also the exact same kind of "sky is falling" rhetoric that came with HIPPA. Lo and behold, we still have large and small doctors' offices, and have taken the first steps towards actually protecting customer health records.