4 ms·

It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party. Businesses buying and selling bus

It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party. Businesses buying and selling businesses happens, all the time. Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time. Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it?

JohnFen 3y ago
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party. > Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time. Right. Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. This is one of the reasons to minimize the amount of data you reveal to any company.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. Certainly. However, taking a common business/law(?) issue and making it a Google issue is lame. EDIT: > That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. > If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party. Well. I can see where you are coming from, but we have to be able to differentiate between a) an ongoing 1p<->2p relationship, where 2p is selling data to a 3p b) a relationship, where the entire 2p gets replaced These two setups are clearly not equal. There is a distinction. And a difference.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    What's the difference? In both cases, your data is now in the possession of a third party that you didn't intend to be in possession of it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
MereInterest 3y ago
> It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party. Suppose I let you borrow my car, on the condition that you not allow your son to drive it. When the car gets totaled, you tell me that you gave the keys to your spouse, and they were the one who let your son drive it. So I have no reason to be angry at you, because you didn't directly hand the keys to him. If you draw an imaginary line around some of the people and assets in a company, declare that the data belongs within that imaginary line, and then say everything inside that imaginary line is being sold, that's the same sort of shell game. > Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it? Yes. There's a lie being told that "selling a business" and getting customer data along with it is somehow distinct from "selling data".

JohnFen 3y ago

That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party. > Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time. Right. Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. This is one of the reasons to minimize the amount of data you reveal to any company.

jstummbillig 3y ago
> Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. Certainly. However, taking a common business/law(?) issue and making it a Google issue is lame. EDIT: > That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. > If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party. Well. I can see where you are coming from, but we have to be able to differentiate between a) an ongoing 1p<->2p relationship, where 2p is selling data to a 3p b) a relationship, where the entire 2p gets replaced These two setups are clearly not equal. There is a distinction. And a difference.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  What's the difference? In both cases, your data is now in the possession of a third party that you didn't intend to be in possession of it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

MereInterest 3y ago

> It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party. Suppose I let you borrow my car, on the condition that you not allow your son to drive it. When the car gets totaled, you tell me that you gave the keys to your spouse, and they were the one who let your son drive it. So I have no reason to be angry at you, because you didn't directly hand the keys to him. If you draw an imaginary line around some of the people and assets in a company, declare that the data belongs within that imaginary line, and then say everything inside that imaginary line is being sold, that's the same sort of shell game. > Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it? Yes. There's a lie being told that "selling a business" and getting customer data along with it is somehow distinct from "selling data".