5 ms·

I thought CCPA was California's GDPR, but it seems to offer consumers very little protection. CCPA does not restrict the collection or processing of personal d

by ed 7y ago

I thought CCPA was California's GDPR, but it seems to offer consumers very little protection. CCPA does not restrict the collection or processing of personal data for marketing purposes. You can't even opt-out. Companies like BounceX will still be able to deanonymize 40% of consumer web visitors for direct marketing. You can only opt-out from your data being sold. And how are you supposed to know when a company is selling your data? The company is not required to tell you – you have to ask. GDPR the other hand is entirely opt-in. Companies cannot collect or process personal information unless given explicit consent. And that's a big deal – the rate of consent is so low that many marketing projects have a negative ROI and companies stop working on them. Enforcement will likely be weak. CCPA introduces civil penalties so consumers can sue companies, or join class action suits, but it will be difficult for a consumer to know when a business is violating CCPA, so this will be rare. California's AG can bring action, but there isn't a very strong incentive for them to do so with the exception of high-profile, politicized cases.

lmkg 7y ago
ICO was not established by GDPR. It has been around since 1984, and was also the agency responsible for enforcing GDPR's predecessors. I agree that a regulatory agency specialized to these issues would increase their importance, but it's not the whole solution. ICO already existed, it just didn't have teeth.
twobat 7y ago
> GDPR the other hand is entirely opt-in. As an European I don't feel like it's opt-in. Last I've heard Google is still tracking me left and right.
- novok 7y ago
  The GDPR add a regulatory hurdle to jump over that is hard to small businesses to do properly, and affordable to Google to do it right and have a similar status quo. I think most startup people would have no problem with the GDPR if it included the minimum limits that the CCPA has.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
CCPA has enough common elements with GDPR that companies are likely to look for a set of practices that meets both in as many cases as possible. I'm hopeful that while the CCPA may lack the full width of GDPR's effect, it will push companies that were special-casing the EU to apply GDPR practices to the US as a whole as well or the entire world. Very few companies are going to want to maintain a separate GDPR strategy, a separate CCPA strategy, and an unregulated strategy, and then selectively apply each to various users. As more jurisdictions jump on board with privacy requirements, hopefully globally consumers will get the benefits of the strongest passed regulation in each category.
- ed 7y ago
  But there is no CCPA strategy. CCPA is so weak that compliance is easy: offer data exports and stop selling data on behalf of the handful people who request it. No need to encrypt stored data, or restrict what you collect, or how you collect it.
x0x0 7y ago
BounceX probably counts as a data sale, and CCPA allows you to restrict data sales via a required link labeled "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" (hereafter DNSMPI) that must be present on the home page and on pages where PI is collected. It remains to be seen how many companies comply, but the law certainly does have some restrictions. Furthermore, there is a CCPAv2 in progress for a proposition on the next ballot.
- ed 7y ago
  I am sure I can opt out of BounceX if I know BounceX exists. But am I really supposed to fill out a DNSMPI form every time I interact with any business? How many new businesses do you think you interact with on a given day? I suspect it is a lot. Opting out is an unreasonable burden and there's a reason why almost no one does it. And yet we know consumers want privacy, so there is clearly a larger structural problem here. We already know the solution! Make data collection opt-in.
  - x0x0 7y ago
    You can fill out DNSMPI once for a business and it applies for at minimum the next 365 days. You do not need to specifically enumerate systems; it is a blanket prohibition.
    - ed 7y ago
      Right, once per business per year. Just remember to go back and renew next year!
      - x0x0 7y ago
        And perhaps reconsider doing business with companies whose business practices you find objectionable
kitotik 7y ago
I think that the enforcement part is key, I’m very skeptical. It likely won’t start until July 2020, and it’s hard to imagine the state AG prioritizing this except for cases you mention - very high profile/political. Current estimates are that out of roughly 500,000 businesses in scope, only 2% will be in compliance by January 1st. Though to be fair, GDPR numbers were fairly similar at the onset. Regardless of my skepticism, I can’t help but feel this is better than nothing, and likely better than an even more diluted federal regulation that all the big corps are lobbying for.
l4u532 7y ago
GDPR is NOT entirely opt-in. For reasons of ‘legitimate interest’ a consent-less collection is warranted (ie. to perform the service). Yes, this does usually excludes data collection for marketing purposes. But it’s important to state that it’s not Entirely opt-in.
- ed 7y ago
  If the collection is truly necessary to provide a service, and the consumer has decided (opted in) to use that service, it seems pretty reasonable.
- jdlshore 7y ago
  However, data collected for that "legitimate interest" may only be used for that specific legitimate interest. They can't turn around and use it to end-run the consent requirement. Also, the "legitimate interest" of the business is required to be weighed against the interests of the data subject, so it isn't a blank check.
chevman 7y ago
Yeah, I've heard similar at the Fortune 10 where I work. We could barely get our legal/compliance/privacy team to meet with us on it. They said our approach is wait and see, that based on the verbiage they see basically no risk of any real litigation resulting from it in the current form and from a business standpoint not to waste time with it.
rfhjt 7y ago
No, they can't sue the company. America has invented the concept of binding arbitration, that effectively allows the company to opt out from laws, as funny as it sounds. Your isp contract, your bank account contract, your insurance contract all likely contain the binding arbitration clause. Coincidentally, these are the companies that get the most accurate and valuable information on you.

by ed 7y ago

lmkg 7y ago

ICO was not established by GDPR. It has been around since 1984, and was also the agency responsible for enforcing GDPR's predecessors. I agree that a regulatory agency specialized to these issues would increase their importance, but it's not the whole solution. ICO already existed, it just didn't have teeth.

twobat 7y ago

> GDPR the other hand is entirely opt-in. As an European I don't feel like it's opt-in. Last I've heard Google is still tracking me left and right.

novok 7y ago
The GDPR add a regulatory hurdle to jump over that is hard to small businesses to do properly, and affordable to Google to do it right and have a similar status quo. I think most startup people would have no problem with the GDPR if it included the minimum limits that the CCPA has.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

CCPA has enough common elements with GDPR that companies are likely to look for a set of practices that meets both in as many cases as possible. I'm hopeful that while the CCPA may lack the full width of GDPR's effect, it will push companies that were special-casing the EU to apply GDPR practices to the US as a whole as well or the entire world. Very few companies are going to want to maintain a separate GDPR strategy, a separate CCPA strategy, and an unregulated strategy, and then selectively apply each to various users. As more jurisdictions jump on board with privacy requirements, hopefully globally consumers will get the benefits of the strongest passed regulation in each category.

ed 7y ago
But there is no CCPA strategy. CCPA is so weak that compliance is easy: offer data exports and stop selling data on behalf of the handful people who request it. No need to encrypt stored data, or restrict what you collect, or how you collect it.

x0x0 7y ago

BounceX probably counts as a data sale, and CCPA allows you to restrict data sales via a required link labeled "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" (hereafter DNSMPI) that must be present on the home page and on pages where PI is collected. It remains to be seen how many companies comply, but the law certainly does have some restrictions. Furthermore, there is a CCPAv2 in progress for a proposition on the next ballot.

ed 7y ago
I am sure I can opt out of BounceX if I know BounceX exists. But am I really supposed to fill out a DNSMPI form every time I interact with any business? How many new businesses do you think you interact with on a given day? I suspect it is a lot. Opting out is an unreasonable burden and there's a reason why almost no one does it. And yet we know consumers want privacy, so there is clearly a larger structural problem here. We already know the solution! Make data collection opt-in.
- x0x0 7y ago
  You can fill out DNSMPI once for a business and it applies for at minimum the next 365 days. You do not need to specifically enumerate systems; it is a blanket prohibition.
  - ed 7y ago
    Right, once per business per year. Just remember to go back and renew next year!
    - x0x0 7y ago
      And perhaps reconsider doing business with companies whose business practices you find objectionable

kitotik 7y ago

I think that the enforcement part is key, I’m very skeptical. It likely won’t start until July 2020, and it’s hard to imagine the state AG prioritizing this except for cases you mention - very high profile/political. Current estimates are that out of roughly 500,000 businesses in scope, only 2% will be in compliance by January 1st. Though to be fair, GDPR numbers were fairly similar at the onset. Regardless of my skepticism, I can’t help but feel this is better than nothing, and likely better than an even more diluted federal regulation that all the big corps are lobbying for.

l4u532 7y ago

GDPR is NOT entirely opt-in. For reasons of ‘legitimate interest’ a consent-less collection is warranted (ie. to perform the service). Yes, this does usually excludes data collection for marketing purposes. But it’s important to state that it’s not Entirely opt-in.

ed 7y ago
If the collection is truly necessary to provide a service, and the consumer has decided (opted in) to use that service, it seems pretty reasonable.
jdlshore 7y ago
However, data collected for that "legitimate interest" may only be used for that specific legitimate interest. They can't turn around and use it to end-run the consent requirement. Also, the "legitimate interest" of the business is required to be weighed against the interests of the data subject, so it isn't a blank check.

chevman 7y ago

Yeah, I've heard similar at the Fortune 10 where I work. We could barely get our legal/compliance/privacy team to meet with us on it. They said our approach is wait and see, that based on the verbiage they see basically no risk of any real litigation resulting from it in the current form and from a business standpoint not to waste time with it.

rfhjt 7y ago

No, they can't sue the company. America has invented the concept of binding arbitration, that effectively allows the company to opt out from laws, as funny as it sounds. Your isp contract, your bank account contract, your insurance contract all likely contain the binding arbitration clause. Coincidentally, these are the companies that get the most accurate and valuable information on you.