6 ms·

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 m

by 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.
    - fastaguy88 5y ago
      Regarding the last section -- you might want to think about how you would answer the question: "When did you stop beating your wife."
      - kbenson 5y ago
        That's not what that is at all. It's more equivalent to going up to someone and asking (privately, I might add), whether they have any domestic violence complaints against them, if there were a law requiring people disclose that on being asked within a certain time frame, and noting they have the legally mandated period of time to reply. Kinda an asshole thing to do, but any person subject to that law (or being asked, even if that's not a law they are subject to) should know how to deal with a request such as that, and if they don't, spend the time to learn how to deal with a request such as that. That might be "fuck off, that's a law from somewhere else" or it might be "I have no complaints"/"I have one complaint". There's a difference between whether someone is being an asshole or has a right to ask something, and whether learning how to deal with that thing if you don't already is a waste of time and money.
        fastaguy88 5y ago
        Except that for many of the requests, the “someone” wasn’t married, or in a relationship. But they still got asked the question.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > From what I read of the statute, it appears to be exactly what that section of the law is for. Sometimes what is legally permitted and what is socially acceptable are different. Pretending to be a member of a small time social network and sending a formally-worded letter to the operator, on a topic you have no personal privacy interest in, is on the legal but not socially acceptable side of the line. It's a jerk move, as you yourself mentioned in a later comment.
      - kbenson 5y ago

by smoe 5y ago

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.
  - fastaguy88 5y ago
    Regarding the last section -- you might want to think about how you would answer the question: "When did you stop beating your wife."
    - kbenson 5y ago
      That's not what that is at all. It's more equivalent to going up to someone and asking (privately, I might add), whether they have any domestic violence complaints against them, if there were a law requiring people disclose that on being asked within a certain time frame, and noting they have the legally mandated period of time to reply. Kinda an asshole thing to do, but any person subject to that law (or being asked, even if that's not a law they are subject to) should know how to deal with a request such as that, and if they don't, spend the time to learn how to deal with a request such as that. That might be "fuck off, that's a law from somewhere else" or it might be "I have no complaints"/"I have one complaint". There's a difference between whether someone is being an asshole or has a right to ask something, and whether learning how to deal with that thing if you don't already is a waste of time and money.
      - fastaguy88 5y ago
        Except that for many of the requests, the “someone” wasn’t married, or in a relationship. But they still got asked the question.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    > From what I read of the statute, it appears to be exactly what that section of the law is for. Sometimes what is legally permitted and what is socially acceptable are different. Pretending to be a member of a small time social network and sending a formally-worded letter to the operator, on a topic you have no personal privacy interest in, is on the legal but not socially acceptable side of the line. It's a jerk move, as you yourself mentioned in a later comment.
    - kbenson 5y ago