3 ms·
No argument there; just pointing out that many of the common complaints around ambiguity are explicitly addressed in the text of the bill already.
by morganherlocker 7y ago
No argument there; just pointing out that many of the common complaints around ambiguity are explicitly addressed in the text of the bill already.
- notfromhere 7y agoThey're really not - the definition of using California household vs resident creates a huge unenforceable gray area for compliance
- morganherlocker 7y agoAgree to disagree on this example I guess. "household" is referred to in the bill when defining re-identification, and this is an important improvement over the language in GDPR, especially when it comes to geolocation data, which is often sold at the household level (ie: Experian sells household level market segmentation profiles that tell you a lot about a person's behavior without directly linking to an individual). The only other place households are referred to is in the section defining which companies the rules apply to, which is also pretty straightforward in a plain reading. If a company's number of consumers, households, or devices exceeds 50k, they qualify. > (B) Alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices.