5 ms·

> I do not consider acceptable to be threatened about California law that does not apply to me. I think that's a bit much. Someone asking how they would submi

> I do not consider acceptable to be threatened about California law that does not apply to me. I think that's a bit much. Someone asking how they would submit a request if they needed to, and specifically saying in the message "I am not submitting a request, just wondering how" isn't exactly threatening you. It's sort of like someone going door to door ina neighborhood asking people what they think of the new water conservation law that requires sprinklers to be run after a certain time of day (which my city has, and recently went into effect). If I'm not in compliance, or don't even know if I'm in compliance, could that person have possibly seen my out of compliance and that's why they're asking? Maybe. If I knew about the law and was actually in compliance, I would know it's not a problem. One thing is not in question though, which is that if I'm subject to the law it's my responsibility to know about it and be in compliance, legally. Someone asking me about it is only a problem if I'm failing to do that in some way. If they ask me about a law for some other county or state? I could look that up and determine I'm not subject to it. There's plenty of information on it. > Is threatening people online not counted because it is online? Your entire comment and all points therein relies on the assertion that the email is threatening. You haven't shown this. Some people might read that email as threatening, but I'll note, the only people that would do so are those that don't actually know whether they are subject to those laws and have ignored what's been going on and were blindsided by the question. This whole thing is blown up because people are upset at being called out on their disregard to the current state of the internet and the laws being passed to regulate it. That's not to say the study was carried out without problem (it wasn't), but there actual harm to people of the type described in this thread was of their own negligence. Whether you think these laws are good or not, it is your responsibility to know whether you are affected, or have some assurance from others whether you are or not (even if it's just a hosting platform telling you what it thinks your responsibilities are). You can ignore this responsibility if you like. People do that all the time about laws that affect them. I'm sure everyone does it to some extent. Just don't act like you're a blameless victim when asked about them.

smoe 5y ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that the "I am not submitting a request, just wondering how" is threatening What they refer to is the final paragraph of the mail "I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code."
- kbenson 5y ago
  Is asking someone to follow the law a threat? I know people like to take it that way, but it's literally saying (whether true or not) "you are required to do this, so do this." I'm a bit more lenient of things that could be classified as implied threats when it boils down to "follow the law" and the threat is only relevant for those not following the law.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Yes, it is a threat, since it suggests that legal action will follow without compliance. It's not an explicit threat, but it communicates a threatening meaning. It is a coercive statement. Now threats aren't necessarily a bad thing when justified. A threat is just, "if you do/don't do this I will/won't do that." But this particular threat was bad in several ways. First, it was directed at targets not actually bound by the relevant law. Second, even if it was directed correctly, many would probably view it as a frivolous use of that law.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > Now threats aren't necessarily a bad thing when justified. A threat is just, "if you do/don't do this I will/won't do that." I agree it's a thread, and what you state here was actually going to be my response to that. > First, it was directed at targets not actually bound by the relevant law. Yes, that's the worst thing about this. At the same time, I think those people should be prepared to answer things like this. The world we live in means anyone can send them the same request at any time, for real reasons (even if that person might be incorrect in what they are requesting). > Second, even if it was directed correctly, many would probably view it as a frivolous use of that law. From what I read of the statute, it appears to be exactly what that section of the law is for. To my (layman's) eyes, this is part of what the "request to know" verbiage in the law is for. (1) Right to Know About Personal Information Collected, Disclosed, or Sold. b. Instructions for submitting a verifiable consumer request to know and links to an online request form or portal for making the request, if offered by the business.
kstrauser 5y ago
People got these requests to their personal blogs. The complaints aren't that someone at Apple had to reply to a fake request, but that people who are literally just hosting tiny websites for the fun of it are getting these letters. If a random teenager sets up a Wordpress site because it looks fun, I contend that they shouldn't have to wonder whether it's legal. Down that path lies insanity.
- dcow 5y ago
  Why shouldn't random teens care about the law?
  - somehnguy 5y ago
    Know what really gets young people deeply interested in tech & programming? Long boring legal text & worrying about legality roadblocks! Said nobody ever.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    I do not appreciate learning about any law by being threatened with it in fake spam email. I guess that the same applies to typical teenager.
- kbenson 5y ago
  My point is that some of these people are subject to the law, and could get an honest to god actual legal request to do something, not just explain their procedures, just as easily. People should know whether they have responsibilities under the law or not.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    Legitimate mails are OK. Mass send spam with illegitimate threats is still not. And many of victims were not subject to this laws.

smoe 5y ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that the "I am not submitting a request, just wondering how" is threatening What they refer to is the final paragraph of the mail "I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code."

kbenson 5y ago
Is asking someone to follow the law a threat? I know people like to take it that way, but it's literally saying (whether true or not) "you are required to do this, so do this." I'm a bit more lenient of things that could be classified as implied threats when it boils down to "follow the law" and the threat is only relevant for those not following the law.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Yes, it is a threat, since it suggests that legal action will follow without compliance. It's not an explicit threat, but it communicates a threatening meaning. It is a coercive statement. Now threats aren't necessarily a bad thing when justified. A threat is just, "if you do/don't do this I will/won't do that." But this particular threat was bad in several ways. First, it was directed at targets not actually bound by the relevant law. Second, even if it was directed correctly, many would probably view it as a frivolous use of that law.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Now threats aren't necessarily a bad thing when justified. A threat is just, "if you do/don't do this I will/won't do that." I agree it's a thread, and what you state here was actually going to be my response to that. > First, it was directed at targets not actually bound by the relevant law. Yes, that's the worst thing about this. At the same time, I think those people should be prepared to answer things like this. The world we live in means anyone can send them the same request at any time, for real reasons (even if that person might be incorrect in what they are requesting). > Second, even if it was directed correctly, many would probably view it as a frivolous use of that law. From what I read of the statute, it appears to be exactly what that section of the law is for. To my (layman's) eyes, this is part of what the "request to know" verbiage in the law is for. (1) Right to Know About Personal Information Collected, Disclosed, or Sold. b. Instructions for submitting a verifiable consumer request to know and links to an online request form or portal for making the request, if offered by the business.

kstrauser 5y ago

People got these requests to their personal blogs. The complaints aren't that someone at Apple had to reply to a fake request, but that people who are literally just hosting tiny websites for the fun of it are getting these letters. If a random teenager sets up a Wordpress site because it looks fun, I contend that they shouldn't have to wonder whether it's legal. Down that path lies insanity.

dcow 5y ago
Why shouldn't random teens care about the law?
- somehnguy 5y ago
  Know what really gets young people deeply interested in tech & programming? Long boring legal text & worrying about legality roadblocks! Said nobody ever.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  I do not appreciate learning about any law by being threatened with it in fake spam email. I guess that the same applies to typical teenager.
kbenson 5y ago
My point is that some of these people are subject to the law, and could get an honest to god actual legal request to do something, not just explain their procedures, just as easily. People should know whether they have responsibilities under the law or not.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  Legitimate mails are OK. Mass send spam with illegitimate threats is still not. And many of victims were not subject to this laws.