6 ms·
I don't think the implication is "everyone is doing it" as much as "these data categories (and category descriptions) are standardized across every company." I
by tqi 6y ago
I don't think the implication is "everyone is doing it" as much as "these data categories (and category descriptions) are standardized across every company."
I am not a lawyer, but I think it is reasonable to assume that this when drafting the law, law makers had to:
- Choose a set of categories that were not to broad and not too narrow, and optimized for reader interpretability/clarity
- Mandate companies to use standard descriptions of these categories in order to prevent them from obfuscating what it was that was being collected.
It's sad to me how many people here immediately assume either malicious intent by iD or incompetence by their lawyers as the only possible explanations. Making something that is widely applicable, easy to interpret, and is meaningful isn't an easy task. Thats not to say that these categories are perfect, just saying there's not an objectively "right" answer.
- gentleman11 6y agoThey could minimize the data they collect, or they could assert that they are disclosing the information. They choose the latter.
- dahfizz 6y agoI don't think you've understood the problem. The "Consumer Records" category of data includes things like name and credit card number. So if doom eternal wants to be able to sell DLCs (a perfectly legitimate and not privacy invasive business model) then they also have to disclose that they may collector medical records. I doubt Id software actually collects medical records, and I have no idea how they might go about that or what a game studio would do with that information. It's just something they have to say by law since they handle credit card info.
- gentleman11 6y agoIf the policy needs to include the category, surely it can elaborate afterwards: we collect data in category X, but only data of Y sort for Z limited purpose
- monadic2 6y agoSad? You’re feeling bad that a corporation might be judged unfairly? Jesus christ.
- jimmaswell 6y agoIt would be sad if games couldn't have any profiles or chat anymore because of some legal BS.
- monadic2 6y agoI don’t think such a thing even registers with me emotionally. It’s a product, not a person.
- dllthomas 6y agoI... think you interpreted the parent comment as referring to a profile representing the game, and a chat account on other services purporting to be the game itself? I think the parent meant profiles within the game representing players, and chat within the game between human players. If your understanding instead matched mine, I don't understand your comment.
- tqi 6y agoI’m sad that the people like you arrogantly assume they are smarter than other people (including those for whom this is literally their job), and if something doesn’t fall into their narrow concept of “what makes sense” they default to malice or incompetence as the only explanation and deny the possibility that complexity or nuance could exist.
- monadic2 6y agoYou're missing the point—who cares what's right? It's a corporation, not a person. Why feel sad about unfairness rather than focusing on the source of the unfairness—data collection itself, or the regulation that people need to be told and fixing that? There's no need to be sad—and to me, no impulse—if you actually have power in society to change what's wrong.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago"It's sad to me how many people here immediately assume either malicious intent " In my defense, having lived on this corporate controlled earth for some time now, I do not think it is unreasonable to be at the very least mildly suspicious. Quite the contrary. The default approach should be cynical. edit: Frankly, deeply cynical.