2 ms·

> That's clearly not true. Amongst others, credit companies in Australia do this frequently and haven't had issues with the ACCC over it. They don't list _arbi

by shakna 6y ago

> That's clearly not true. Amongst others, credit companies in Australia do this frequently and haven't had issues with the ACCC over it. They don't list _arbitrary_ third parties. For example, Mastercard tells everyone "MasterCard requires members to register all Third Party Processors (TPPs) and Data Storage Entities (DSEs) with the MasterCard Registration Program system.", and then all of those are available for the public, usually via a link, within their policy. > What specifically? I'm Australian and I'm not aware of any law that specifies anything like that at all. Enough information that informed consent can be considered. It isn't specified, because it were, then companies would work around it. Australia makes use of a Common Law system, that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated.

nl 6y ago
> They don't list _arbitrary_ third parties. For example, Mastercard tells everyone... Not sure if you mean Google or Mastercard doesn't list third parties? You seem to be conflating Mastercards's PCI compliance requirements[1] with their data sales to companies like Equifax[2] and others, which is an extremely opaque trade and not disclosed. > Enough information that informed consent can be considered. It isn't specified, because it were, then companies would work around it. Australia makes use of a Common Law system, that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated. Exactly, and I don't believe that any court would find that they need to specify "that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc". I'd note that the ACCC isn't making that claim either. > that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated Well "reasonable" is decided the courts, so it is litigated. [1] https://www.mastercard.com.au/en-au/merchants/safety-security/security-recommendations/service-providers-need-to-know.html https://www.mastercard.com.au/en-au/merchants/safety-securit... [2] https://www.equifax.com.au/about-us https://www.equifax.com.au/about-us

by shakna 6y ago

nl 6y ago

> They don't list _arbitrary_ third parties. For example, Mastercard tells everyone... Not sure if you mean Google or Mastercard doesn't list third parties? You seem to be conflating Mastercards's PCI compliance requirements[1] with their data sales to companies like Equifax[2] and others, which is an extremely opaque trade and not disclosed. > Enough information that informed consent can be considered. It isn't specified, because it were, then companies would work around it. Australia makes use of a Common Law system, that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated. Exactly, and I don't believe that any court would find that they need to specify "that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc". I'd note that the ACCC isn't making that claim either. > that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated Well "reasonable" is decided the courts, so it is litigated. [1] https://www.mastercard.com.au/en-au/merchants/safety-security/security-recommendations/service-providers-need-to-know.html https://www.mastercard.com.au/en-au/merchants/safety-securit... [2] https://www.equifax.com.au/about-us https://www.equifax.com.au/about-us