3 ms·

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.

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
    In aggregate it's a jerk move. For any single individual it's the purpose of that statute, from what I can see. Asking, as an individual, for how to make requests like that isn't what I would consider a jerk move or frivolous use of the law. It's for that reason I think people should be prepared to answer these questions if presented, and being presented with them and having to account is for them not a waste of time. I think people are too caught up in that the people performing the study were being jerks in how they went about it when the actual email is perfectly formed as what any random person on the internet could legitimately send (at least with respect to what damage this caused).
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > any random person on the internet could legitimately send Any random person on the internet could harmlessly send a more gently worded email and then only escalate to legalese if they get an unsatisfactory response.
      - kbenson 5y ago
        I'm honestly not sure what point you think I'm trying to make. Because that's not really relevant to what I was trying to express, and I'm kind of tired of trying to clarify my point only to feel like people are ignoring what I say. Either I'm not expressing it well, or people are failing to bother considering it. I'll let you keep whatever interpretation of my point you have, as it's no longer worth trying to correct.

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
  In aggregate it's a jerk move. For any single individual it's the purpose of that statute, from what I can see. Asking, as an individual, for how to make requests like that isn't what I would consider a jerk move or frivolous use of the law. It's for that reason I think people should be prepared to answer these questions if presented, and being presented with them and having to account is for them not a waste of time. I think people are too caught up in that the people performing the study were being jerks in how they went about it when the actual email is perfectly formed as what any random person on the internet could legitimately send (at least with respect to what damage this caused).
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    > any random person on the internet could legitimately send Any random person on the internet could harmlessly send a more gently worded email and then only escalate to legalese if they get an unsatisfactory response.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      I'm honestly not sure what point you think I'm trying to make. Because that's not really relevant to what I was trying to express, and I'm kind of tired of trying to clarify my point only to feel like people are ignoring what I say. Either I'm not expressing it well, or people are failing to bother considering it. I'll let you keep whatever interpretation of my point you have, as it's no longer worth trying to correct.