Jump to content

admin

This website will be closing down on December 31, 2019 if California doesn't amend the CCPA.

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
admin -
15
215

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

As will many, many bloggers and other small ad supported websites due to onerous and draconian data privacy laws.

AND WE HAVE NEVER AND WOULD NEVER SELL OUR USER'S DATA!  - It's the part about Google Ads supporting this website and the new oversight burden it will cause to small to medium websites like this one and even small time bloggers.

If you don't see anything on this domain starting on January 1st, 2020 you'll know why.

Thank you to all the members over the last 3+ years for sharing what you have. I truly feel sad that things have turned this direction.

Ironic that Communist States weren't the ones to muzzle us.... in the end it was California of all places. Go figure!


-----------------------

Here is an article explaining in detail....

For years, many privacy professionals yearned for a comprehensive U.S. privacy law. So when California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, a comprehensive privacy law, you’d expect the privacy community to cheer loudly. However, the celebration has been muted—for good reason. It’s impossible to cheer a terrible law that passed via a terrible procedure.

Here's some reasons why the law hasn’t been enthusiastically received:

The law covers too many enterprises. The law was supposed to curb the purportedly abusive privacy practices of internet giants (like Google and Facebook) and data brokers. Unfortunately, the law overshot this goal; it reaches most businesses, online or off. Facebook may have been the target, but the local pizzeria will bear the law’s brunt.

Specifically, the law reaches businesses that collect personal information from 50,000-plus consumers per year, regardless of revenue. This applies to businesses that accept credit cards from 137-plus unique customers per day, including Walmart, Amazon, and a typical frozen yogurt stand.

The law also reaches commercial online services that collect IP addresses from 137-plus unique visitors per day, including tiny websites. For example, my blog gets 50,000-plus visitors per year and makes about $400 per year in ad revenue, yet the law treats my blog like Google and Facebook. If the law doesn’t change, I’ll likely shut down ads and forego the associated revenue to avoid compliance costs that would vastly exceed my revenues.

The cost/benefit problem. The CCPA requires businesses to adopt a variety of nominally consumer-friendly offerings, such as letting consumers learn more about, and opt-out of, privacy-invasive practices. While this sounds like a win for consumers, businesses will pass along the compliance costs to consumers; or to the extent the law inhibits currently profitable practices, businesses will stop providing those services to consumers or find other ways to charge consumers more. Thus, consumers will pay for the CCPA-mandated offerings one way or another, regardless of whether they value, or take advantage of, them. It’s not a question of whether consumers value privacy; the question is whether the law is a good value for them.

Duplicative CCPA/GDPR compliance. Because the CCPA’s requirements don’t track the EU General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR-compliant businesses will incur additional compliance costs. Perhaps the duplicative compliance has some benefits (other than to privacy professionals!), but it’s more likely the extra costs won’t make businesses or consumers better off.                                 
Ends don’t justify the means. The CCPA’s path to approval sounds like a failure of democracy. A wealthy Californian spent $3 million to qualify a privacy initiative for the November 2018 ballot. The text was drafted behind closed doors without multi-stakeholder input. Not surprisingly, a wide range of constituencies considered that text unpalatable.

Once the initiative qualified for the ballot, the initiative sponsor made the California legislature an “offer” it couldn’t refuse: pass a bill like the initiative, or if California voters approve the problematic initiative text, the bad provisions would become functionally permanent and beyond legislative supervision. This sparked a one-week frenzy where a few lobbyists made minor changes to the initiative’s text, and then the legislature passed an important, incredibly long (10,000-plus words) and complex law without adequate scrutiny or public input.

Due to these process deficiencies, the law doesn’t reflect the will of many affected stakeholders. Instead, it was just the less-odious option in a Hobson’s Choice.

Worse, the CCPA’s procedural trick is instructive to other policy entrepreneurs with pet topics and money to burn. The CCPA’s success encourages these policy entrepreneurs—with potentially more dubious objectives—to similarly strong-arm the California legislature.

The law is riddled with mistakes. A law as lengthy and complicated as the CCPA requires careful editing. Because of its speedy approval process, the final bill has many wince-inducing errors — such as the counterproductive requirement that businesses publish all of their consumers’ personal information in their privacy policies (see 1798.110(c)(5)). The CCPA also has innumerable ambiguities, such as whether employees are defined as “consumers” or how “personal information” excludes “de-identified information.” I've detailed a fuller list of problems here.

Collectively, the law’s mistakes make it look like the legislature was moving too fast (it was) and did an amateurish job (you can form your own opinion about that). The avoidable and embarrassing mistakes make it impossible to respect the law or the process that produced it.

The CCPA isn’t a model for other states. It’s not even a model for California. Other states will be interested in using the CCPA as a model law. However, with its many drafting defects, the CCPA isn’t ready for prime-time in California, let alone anywhere else. Plus, the California economy is about to bear an unanticipated, expensive, and business-chilling burden as hundreds of thousands of businesses scramble to comply with the CCPA. Other states would be well-served to wait-and-see how California’s “experiment” goes before dropping a similar bomb on their economies.

Conclusion. There are many other unresolved questions about the CCPA, including its constitutionality. Even if the CCPA survives the inevitable constitutional challenges, it is bad policy resulting from an unacceptable process. Because of this, I don’t think the privacy community will ever fully embrace the CCPA, no matter how much it supports consumer privacy.

By Makaristos

https://iapp.org/news/a/the-california-consumer-privacy-act-should-be-condemned-not-celebrated/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add that this is not just for ad supported websites... MANY large "non-forum" websites will need to create wide-sweeping data privacy elements, opt-ins, opt-outs etc to comply.

This includes bloggers, loyalty apps and programs.... and dare I say it.... even religious organizations.

Data is the new Oil.... and California wants to control it any way it can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in California ... Malibu. Hollywood Hills, Burbank, Concord, San Diego during the 60's and 70's and had a GREAT time.

I would not go back there  for less than 5 Million Dollars a year, and then it would be like visiting East Germany before the "Wall" fell.

It has become the "Peoples Republik of Kalifornia", and the Democrats have completely ruined this beautiful State with their goofy laws and regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin said:

Ironic that Communist States weren't the ones to muzzle us.... in the end it was California of all places. Go figure!

I can’t believe that @James Thomas Rook Jr. did not say something to the effect of: “What do you mean it wasn’t from a Communist state?” He is really falling down on the job.

Since it is only one state—California, is there some tool so that you could block anything from that state. If you and enough webmasters do such, and Californians are blocked from enough sites, citizens will feed their politicians to the sharks. (who may spit them out).

Europe has some very stringent data privacy laws—yes, it does affect religious organizations—and this site has exposure there. How do you deal with that?

Can you post an absurdly long fine print list of gobbledygook such as people are used to, where they can say they don’t care about this stuff, and they must check yes before they can proceed?

My guess is that this will blow over because it would cause negative consequences for too many people—even small businesses that take credit cards, you say? Admittedly, the fact that it is California mitigates my optimism some.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at a blog on the platform I use, I read:

  • Privacy Notice
    We do not share personal information with third-parties nor do we store information we collect about your visit to this blog for use other than to analyze content performance through the use of cookies, which you can turn off at anytime by modifying your Internet browser's settings. We are not responsible for the republishing of the content found on this blog on other Web sites or media without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice.
  • Copyright Notice
    All content (including text, photographs, and design work) is [name withheld] My original artwork is for personal inspiration only and may not be copied for publication or contest submission. Some of the products used on my blog may have been provided by the vendors mentioned in my posts.
Does something like this do the trick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley No. Not based in California. But the rules are so sweeping it can include sites like this one... remember... not just users but "IP address hits" for lack of a better term.

I do like your idea of blocking all CA users until they sort it out.... but I've read that there is no real way to accomplish this. 

Unless Google comes up with some tools to assist us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Looking at a blog on the platform I use, I read:

  • Privacy Notice
    We do not share personal information with third-parties nor do we store information we collect about your visit to this blog for use other than to analyze content performance through the use of cookies, which you can turn off at anytime by modifying your Internet browser's settings. We are not responsible for the republishing of the content found on this blog on other Web sites or media without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice.
  • Copyright Notice
    All content (including text, photographs, and design work) is [name withheld] My original artwork is for personal inspiration only and may not be copied for publication or contest submission. Some of the products used on my blog may have been provided by the vendors mentioned in my posts.
Does something like this do the trick?

If there are ads on your site.... that doesn't even comply with the already in play GDPR in Europe that we already have notices for.....

But nice try 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, admin said:

If there are ads on your site.... that doesn't even comply with the already in play GDPR in Europe that we already have notices for.....

But nice try 😉

It is a Typepad blog, as is mine. It is the first blog that I came across while thinking about your posts, the first I noticed that addresses privacy concerns. Why it does it I do not know. It contains no ads. 

This sort of thing is so typical. When the world at last wakes up to a problem, it wildly overswings, missing the actual target,  but smashing out the teeth of the little guy on the periphery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By Foreigner
      Why would you continue false information and hate to continue? Didn't you say you are a witness? The problem is, California usually sets a legal  precedent for other states to follow. If anything, you should blame people like JTR, witness, Shiwiii, Srecko, etc. for having the government to rethink how much freedom of speech has, especially when it threatens the lives of people by hate speech. 
      What should be advocated is the censorship of such people in websites. Since Webmasters aren't willing, then it's up to the government to take control. Then again, you should know being a webmaster.
    • By admin
      Admins, please add yours to this thread if you will be following the same course of action.
      Thank you.
      1. TheWorldNewsMedia.org 
      2.
      ......
       
  • Forum Statistics

    61,183
    Total Topics
    112,013
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,406
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rose Twombly
    Newest Member
    Rose Twombly
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.