It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California's new privacy law could cost companies a total of $55 billion to get in compliance

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 01:32 AM
link   


California's new privacy law could cost companies a total of up to $55 billion in initial compliance costs, according to an economic impact assessment prepared for the state attorney general's office by an independent research firm.

California's new privacy law could cost companies a total of $55 billion to get in compliance

Do you own the right to control your *own* personal information or does it belong to the highest bidder?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of this new law and am hopeful that it does become the model for a nationwide law that specifically protects individuals privacy and lays out significant penalties for individuals and companies that don't adhere to it.

The practice of companies selling someone's personal information has become commonplace. And in almost all cases, it is not a practice that benefits the individual in question. As a matter of fact, there have been many cases where this practice has caused great harm to people in ways both large & small.

Ultimately it comes down to answering a *very* fundamental question:

Who owns the rights to an individual's personal information?

Do you or does it belong to some faceless corporation simply because they were able to either dig it up somehow or because they paid someone else for the information? Does this go against an individual's right to privacy as spelled out in our constitution? Does that constitutional protection even apply?

The answer to that question has some extremely far-reaching and important ramifications.

And at this point, it looks like the position of most courts and governments is NOT on the side of the individual.

God bless capitalism and the quest for the almighty dollar. I believe if people don't stand up and try and stop this practice right now, they'll be *VERY* sorry in the future...



edit on 10/6/2019 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

What are your thoughts?



My thoughts are private thank you very much 😎



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 01:51 AM
link   
My thoughts are private and held in secret, thank you



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 03:43 AM
link   
They just worshipping their gods at the UN controlled EU
GDPR ?



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

At a fundamental level, and I know that this is a little off topic, the problem is not so much controlling who has your data but is instead actually knowing that the data exists in the first place, and how it might be combined. A few are tracking you across the internet isn't really a big deal, but when the company that owns the tracking data sells it on to a company who owns credit card data (in the us this can be brought and sold) and credit rating data, these can be combined to individually identify you and to profile you.

These companies are only having to pay to clean up their own mess so I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They build an industry on what is essentially a legal form of spying and data gathering, and now they are facing the regulations that should have been there from the start, but which weren't as the people who make the rules never thought that things would go this far or get this dirty.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Its a bit tricky....these companies exist, and are free, ONLY because of advertising. Thus why they sell the data. If Facebook or others offered a paid service then one has the option and could sue if the data was used without permission. But use the free service...and all bets are off. Sounds fair to me.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


The law would apply to all businesses in the state that generate annual gross revenue over $25 million; derive at least half of their annual revenue from selling customers' personal information; or that buy, sell or share personal information from at least 50,000 consumers, households or devices. Researchers estimated that as many as 75% of California businesses earning less than $25 million in revenue would be impacted by the legislation.

So, that means that 75% of California businesses get at least half of their revenue from selling customer's personal information or buy/sell information from at least 50,000 consumers.

If they are getting money from personal information I don't see a problem with giving the consumer rights for their own information, after all they are being used without their knowledge and/or consent.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I a reply to: ArMaP

I wonder if one could incorporate themselves as say, a Data Collection Point. One could then patent their own ID and charge these companies directly....or sue them for copyright infringement. Would be fun to try it on anyway.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Why in the world are companies getting paid money for my information without me compensating in return? People should be at birth given a copyright on themselves, requiring any use of themselves and their personage to require permission and /or compensation to the person...

Of course then again that's what the terms agreement thing everyone agrees to without reading is for...



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I a reply to: ArMaP

I wonder if one could incorporate themselves as say, a Data Collection Point. One could then patent their own ID and charge these companies directly....or sue them for copyright infringement. Would be fun to try it on anyway.


There have been a number of people that have sued companies for using or disseminating their information and many have won some pretty hefty judgements.

But that's all civil court.

They need to make doing this a *crime* so people or companies (their officers at least) can be prosecuted in criminal court.

That will stop this practice faster than anything else. Some companies will do the math and determine that losing a lawsuit will cost them less overall than what they can make by doing it in the first place, so they do it anyway.

And that sucks...



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Do you or does it belong to some faceless corporation simply because they were able to either dig it up somehow or because they paid someone else for the information? Does this go against an individual's right to privacy as spelled out in our constitution? Does that constitutional protection even apply?


Now I'm not trying to defending this in any way, shape, or form because I hate how all of our information is bought/sold/shared among all these companies, but the main reason it happens is because people willingly give it out and give permission for it to happen. More often than not, it's in the T&C's they agree to. People never read them either, they just hit agree. I know, it sucks, if you don't agree you can't use the product, but rather than not use it people just agree to it. I mean, some f2p game app's require access to your photo's and call logs, for example.

I've worked jobs that have long T&C's that we have to go over with people and it surprises me how often people just want you to hurry through it so they can sign away. A long time ago I worked activations for a Qwest Wireless call center. People would call in to get their phones activated, but we couldn't do it unless they let us go through the T&C's, which could take up to 15+ minutes. We'd get angry sigh's, grumpy statements to hurry up, or completely ignored(which I could tell because I'd have to ask them if they agree, but would get no response). I actually loved it when people got angry enough to hang up, because I'm not allowed to activate the phone until they get to the end and say agree, which meant they had to call in again and do it all over. lol

The point I'm getting at is people did this to themselves, and to be honest, I'm not much better myself. I hate reading those things, and even after reading them I tend to agree anyway so I can use the damn product.


originally posted by: Riffrafter
I believe if people don't stand up and try and stop this practice right now, they'll be *VERY* sorry in the future...


I don't believe we have the right to be "sorry" if we're the ones who continue to willingly give it out.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Staff Edit: T&C violation

edit on 10/6/19 by FredT because: Staff Edit: T&C violation



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
California doesn't give a rats ass about ones privacy.

Or they wouldn't force their residents to pass background checks before they get to practice their 2nd amendment right.




posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't know what background checks they ask for, some could be considered private, others not.

If this was like the EU's GDPR then even the state would have to follow that law, but apparently it applies only to "businesses".



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Good.... All states should follow along. Companies should NOT have access to our information, any of it, unless we give it to them freely and NOT before. This opt out BS has to stop. I should have to opt in, not opt out.

Opting out is as though my information belongs to them before I tell them it doesn't. I shouldn't have to opt out of anything before I decide to opt in.

This theft of personal information has gotten out of control. This is why so many accounts and all this identity theft is draining the people and this country of millions and perhaps billions each year.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Where, exactly, in the Constitution, is the right to privacy? I was under the impression that Roe v. Wade was used to invent it. Funny thing is, we need an amendment to secure that right so that it means that we actually have a right to privacy... not a right to kill unborn children. They just seem like opposite things to me.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterMcKill

That shouldn't even be a question. Right to privacy should just be a given.

However, you are often in your home when they steal your privacy but either way... It should be a given.

It's like you sitting at a restaurant and me walking up and huddling over your shoulder while you're looking at your phone or ordering from the menu or having a conversation with a person next to you. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be able to do anything similar through a digital device.

Abortions are a different subject altogether.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Necrobile

Thats a horrible comparison and example. If you read every TOS contract for every single thing that you use.... You would be old and grey before you get a chance to use them. Not to mention, everyone doesn't have a lawyer intellect and can understand the loopholes in every TOS. If you read them, you will find that you pretty much give up all rights to everything and you shouldn't restrict people to use something just because they wont give you their information.

Based on this, most people that don't agree with their privacy being whored out would never use anything electronic today.



posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
Where, exactly, in the Constitution, is the right to privacy? I was under the impression that Roe v. Wade was used to invent it. Funny thing is, we need an amendment to secure that right so that it means that we actually have a right to privacy... not a right to kill unborn children. They just seem like opposite things to me.


The 4th amendment of the Constitution:



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath ...


Although it doesn't explicitly state "right to privacy" that is what this amendment provides.

Hope that helps.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
At the bottom of all my e-mail is a copy write mark © and my name.

i have a friend that is a retired copy write lawyer that loves suing anyone that hacks email and posts it on the internet.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join