4 ms·
I didn't see a legal threat in the original email.
by avalys 5y ago
I didn't see a legal threat in the original email.
- tantalor 5y ago> ... as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code.
- dcow 5y agoThat’s not a threat. A threat would be, “I’ll sue you if you don’t comply with my request”.
- rectang 5y agoInteresting. Do you or any of your associates send these sorts of notices to anyone?
- charcircuit 5y agoYes, I have had friends jokingly say they would request the information I have on them because of GDPR.
- progman32 5y agoResponding to throwaway, I think the critical difference here is that you're making the requests in good faith. The researcher was making these (could be interpreted as vague) requests deceptively.
- throawayblahads 5y agoYeah, I think that's right. But it does raise an interesting point. The meta-point of the study was a good one, I think, which is to "study privacy on the internet". I'm soooo behind that (one reason I am disappointed in the ethical lapses here)—I've often considered publishing the steps I take for each website on a substack or whatever, to help other people. Sometimes, it can be hard to figure out (1) if your data can be requested-to-be-deleted, and (2) how to even do it. Clearly, the deception was bad; I guess, just thinking out loud, how could this study have been done ethically? Perhaps, sign up real people to request the data, and transparently include a notice that this was part of a study? The last bit is the tricky one; including that might skew the results in favor of websites being compliant.
- dcow 5y agoIf I understand correctly the sentiment is that the study is not in “good faith” by virtue of being a study. That’s where I’m genuinely ethically confused. It’s not like the study is bad faith (like they’re trying to trick websites into something illegal then sue them). At worst it’s neutral faith. But why is that unethical?
- throawayblahads 5y agoEDIT: Some grammar, and minor clause clarification in second-to-last paragraph. Yes, frequently. And throwaway. About once a week, I pick an account in my LastPass collection, and initiate the following process: 1. Initiate a CCPA data request using a form or email, and I always include language about the timeline. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a person. 2. Then, once I have the data, I delete the account. I'm trying to purge my web presence before I move out of California. I have about 200 accounts left, and have done this with 50. Admittedly, these are all large businesses, so far. Think Google, where I've worked myself, so I know they are equipped to handle it. But, I will be working my way down to small businesses eventually, and I am surprised to find out that simply quoting the statute (which is what I do) is considered anything but vaguely legally threatening. If the website doesn't fall under CCPA, or hell, if it does, I just expect it to be ignored. I mean no ill will. I'm personally pretty conflicted, since I actually fully agree with this [1] about the study being unethical, but if I send an email as an individual to a website with my data, quoting a California law, that doesn't seem wrong to me, even if it causes $10k in legal costs, since my request is truly genuine and not intended to cause harm. I would agree that there is a distinction at the study level, but I'm not exactly sure why. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29599553#29601020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29599553#29601020
- seanhunter 5y agoThe distinction is super clear to me. You as an individual are exercising genuine data subject access rights granted to you by law. They are a researcher prentending to be a data subject exercising rights in order to gather data for their study.
- eigenvalue 5y agoEven if what you are doing is "legal" it seems abusive as hell to me, especially if it is ever targeted at a smaller company or person like in the OP's case. Why are being so difficult? Why don't you find something more useful to do with your time instead of making others jump through idiotic hoops out of some misplaced sense of justice?
- 5y ago
- MR4D 5y agoYou’ve clearly never dealt with lawyers very much. The implied threat is pretty obvious to those that have.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
- MR4D 5y agoI’ve been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. I’ve seen more crappy stuff from lawyers all the time. Remember, in the US, you do not need a reason to sue someone. A friend just got sued by a guy who tried to by his house for some BS reason. Trust me, stupid stuff happens.
- Godel_unicode 5y agoBet he heard about that by some method other than email ;)
- MR4D 5y agoHa! Good point. But then his was an actual suit, not a threat.
- tiahura 5y agoLawyers don’t imply potential litigation, they are quite explicit.
- Sophira 5y agoAlso, while not a legal threat, "My questions are about your process for when I do submit a request." strongly implies an intent to submit a legal CCPA request in the future. Using "if" instead of "when" would have somewhat mitigated this, although it still comes across as somebody trying to find a loophole.
- vkou 5y agoAnd I don't see what's threatening about pointing out that you have a very nice windshield, and that it would truly be a shame if anything happened to it... And that I sell windshield insurance.