SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey
Your company has suffered a data breach. The law requires you to fall on your sword, and—at considerable time and expense—provide a government-scripted breach disclosure notice to your customers, including the facts and circumstances surrounding the breach, how it happened, what data was breached and, more importantly, what you are doing about it.
Irrespective of the costs of the breach itself, the government-compelled disclosure may cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in disclosure costs alone, not to mention the reputational and other costs associated with this compelled speech. To make matters worse, the government-ordered speech does little in and of itself to make consumers safer or better protected against hackers.
[...] The data breach disclosure laws are clearly government-compelled speech. The government has a good reason for wanting companies to make such disclosures, but such reasons may not be "compelling" and the disclosure may not be the least intrusive means of achieving the government's objectives. Under the EU's GDPR regulations, the disclosure is made to the government privacy entity, and only where that entity believes it necessary is a public disclosure made.
In essence, the Supreme Court has found a right of commercial entities not to be required to make notifications and disclosures because they have a first amendment right not to be forced to do so.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jiro on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:24PM (19 children)
Is this actually true? It doesn't make the consumers already affected by the breach safe, but putting criminals in jail doesn't make the people already hurt by the criminals safe. It discourages future companies from doing unsafe things, and thus makes future consumers safer and better protected against hackers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:53PM (14 children)
Shouldn't companies have the right of free expression of their thoughts and ideas?
Suppose a company wants to express themselves by making an HTTP GET parameter such as: ?customerId=5839
such that customerId is a numerical sequence starting at 1. And viewing (maybe even editing?) a customer's private information record requires you to know one of these sequential numbers.
Shouldn't it be the company's free speech right to say their system is of a secure design?
What about free speech and advertising? Shouldn't a company be able to say that their food additive is safe, even if it contains less than 9 % drain opener?
What about free speech rights concerning lists of ingredients on food?
And what about a company's free speech right on nutrition information labeling to say that their product has only XX grams of salt when it actually has 23 times more than the stated amount?
Corporations are people too! And their feewings get hurt if they cannot express their free speech!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:33PM (3 children)
Yes. Well, and all too often, the people they are like are psychopaths and sociopaths.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:39PM (1 child)
I think one might actually have to be either a psychopath or sociopath in order to work one's way up to the C level in a fairly large corporation. Or, if suddenly propelled to that level, staying there for any length will change the person into one eventually.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:56PM
Dancing with the devil does not chance the devil; the devil changes you...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:42PM
"Yes. Well, and all too often, the people they are like are psychopaths and sociopaths."
And guess what? We lock those fuckers up when they become a danger to others. In the case of mental patients, we also lock them up if they become a danger to themselves as well.
These forced disclosures are a legal requirement for the safety of the population.
Besides which, any company actually saying they should have the right to HIDE their incompetence at the cost of their users/customers are basically asking to be tossed off a cliff. Breaches will eventually be leaked to the public. And the public will likely be a LOT more pissed when they find out that credit damage done to them over the last 5 years was due to Big Company putting all their customer info up on a public facing website in plain text years ago and then hid it from everyone just so they could save a few dollars and a LOT of PR in the short term. Ultimate outcome is that there's going to be an exodus of customers from that company. At least by forcing admittance of their shitty practices customers can protect themselves from Day 1 (Which is usually 6-12 months or more after a breach anyway) and it becomes a BIG motivator for the company to reorganize how they do business so that it's actually secure going forward.
So companies trying to hide this behind a free speech argument are companies that want to save money on online security practices. That's the bottom line. Do you feel like trusting a company like that? I know I don't.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:46PM (5 children)
I'll believe that when I see a corporation go to jail.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:05PM (4 children)
I'd prefer to see a corporation get the death penalty. Simply dissolve the corporation for some egregious violation of law.
Instantly investors lose out. CEOs and other CXX are out of a job. Other people out of a job. Serious consequences.
The result: EVERYONE will start to hold corporations more accountable (investors, CXX's, legislators) long before things go off the rails.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:56PM
The amazing thing is that in my experience at least a CxO who runs a company into the ground is more likely to be given a chance to be a CxO than a lower-level executive who has been successfully running whatever they're in charge of. This might have something to do with their buddies from their former job doing the hiring.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
What about the assets? Wholly owned subsidiaries? Parent corporation that actually owns everything?
Any way you line up this "death penalty", some structure will emerge where the corporation found responsible will own nothing and the stock holders, execs, etc, can move on to another corporation with an oddly (ahem, exactly) similar structure.
It's hard to make "death" apply to legal fictions in a meaningful way.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday July 06 2018, @02:09PM
It was a quick idea. But to refine it . . .
The death penalty applies to the corporation or wholly owned subsidiary that committed the offense. Not to a holding company. Not necessarily to a parent company that owns the offending company -- unless it is shown that the offense was done at the parent company's direction, and on up the chain of ownership. It stops where the offense began.
The assets are disposed of as in bankruptcy liquidation. The creditors are paid off, and maybe the investors get something.
If investors are unhappy, they should pay more attention to how evil are the companies they invest in.
If creditors are unhappy, maybe they should have some threshold of just how evil of an organization they will associate with.
Just as in all of human history. This is what happens with evil human individuals. It serves as a lesson to others. People becoming too evil become well known and are shunned. Collateral damage is done in inflicting the death penalty. Etc.
It's not a perfect plan. But some people want corporations to be people, so let's make it sew.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Friday July 06 2018, @05:32AM
I dunno. "Going to jail" could be the equivalent of a death penalty. "Going to jail" would involved having all the physical premises padlocked and all the bank accounts frozen for the duration of the sentence. 30 days in the slammer for Wells Fargo, VW, The Trump Organization, whatever. Production stops, cash flow stops, but contract obligations don't stop. Gonna be a lot of penalties after the sentence is up and the dust settles.
Why yes, it would hurt innocent people. Criminals do that. A corporation that steals from thousands hurts far more people than the blue collar mugger can ever aspire to.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)
Nice troll, but you fail to recognize the difference between the risk of future harm, and some imaginary hurt feelings.
Free speech does not extend so far as to allow you two shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
But it does not absolve the management from turning up the house lights and announcing that a real fire exists.
Nor does any part of the law require you to applaud at end of the film.
You need not express approval of something you disapprove of.
Maybe you were going for funny. I'm not amused. Sue me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:29PM
A common misconception. It's never been decided, and the status of shouting "fire" in a theatre is not clear.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:34PM
Thanks!
Don't give lawmakers any ideas.
Just wait until
Trump'sThe Dear Leader's 3rd or 4th term.More to the point:
When Corporations have imaginary hurt feelings, that IS a future harm. Even if it is not so for the rest of us mere humans. Corporations don't like having to say they did something wrong -- even if they did and it harmed millions of people. You can be sure that the corporations (and their shills) will not like the government compelling them to disclose major breaches of security.
IMO, one reason why they SHOULD be required to disclose breaches, beyond simply notifying everyone after the fact, is that it serves as an incentive to PREVENT breaches in the first place. I happen to think they should also be civilly liable for all ensuing damages. But that won't happen because then they would REALLY have to think about security and take it seriously. Getting their security modded Funny wouldn't cut it.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:23PM
Food companies are already allowed to call their products "meat" as long as they're no more than x% insect parts, "100% beef" with pink slime, etc.
This is already a thing, as long as the rounding works out right. Like how companies could say a thing had 0g trans fats as long as it was <0.5g.
"Secure" and "not secure" isn't a boolean value. And besides, "secure" isn't a well-defined industry-standard term.
Also, your example was weak and your father smelt of elderberries.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:46PM
s/It discourages/In theory it discourages/
FTFY. Any company benefiting from significant regulatory capture or outright monopoly status can ignore theoretical future consequences. I mean, what choice do you have in that situation?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:05PM (1 child)
Well, let's see ... Target handled all their CC information in plaintext, and they stored all CC numbers - once again in plaintext - to be used as customer tracking IDs. After I had my CC replaced by my bank I never shopped at Target again. So yes, I am safer now because I know what Target did.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:15PM
Target violated Credit Card Processing rules (contracts) when they did that. You aren't allowed to store CC numbers encrypted any more. You promised that was the case when you signed your Merchant agreement. (Or at least I did).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06 2018, @07:17AM
Is this actually true?
Most people re-use passwords. The longer you wait before telling people that they need to change the passwords, the more time you give the criminals to abuse those passwords.
It's the same for credit card numbers. The longer you wait before telling that your credit card database (which you probably weren't supposed to store in the first place) has been compromised, the more time you give the criminals to abuse those credit cards.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:26PM (44 children)
Now on to the more important topic of does the company have to bake them a cake if they're gay?
Whos a slave of who for what, makes it on topic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:54PM (21 children)
Least applicable example brought to us by one of the most rabid right wing nut jobs around here. Disclosing data breaches is slavery? Have you looked into getting a species reassignment to squirrel?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:42PM (11 children)
I'm happily married, so flattery will get you nowhere.
I was looking for a funny mod. In 2018 there's only two business regulations to discuss:
1) Do you have to bake a wedding cake for gay dudes? What if you're not even a baker? I'm a software dev / admin guy I don't even own cake sheet pans or a convection oven. I'm fucked if two gay guys ask my company to bake them a cake.
2) If a copy of a customers dwarf necro sexting pix is stolen, does the customer have to be told? Given that FB, FBI, google, NSA, CIA, PDQ, the Russians, and Walmart all have semi-legal copies already, I'm not sure who is stealing it?
I mean, I'm old, so I've read Graham and Dodd and took it seriously LOL, and I know like 50 pages of my states sales tax regulations, and I know all this "General Business" shit that is actually kinda profitable, but all the general public wants to talk about WRT business stuff is gay cakes and stolen data that we pretend in 2018 is still private.
Its a ridiculous set of topics to focus on, as if the general public thought the curriculum for a PHD in CS was merely playing Angry Birds and shitposting on MySpace really well. Geeze that shit is old everyone moved to 4chan and Fortnite ages ago, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:59PM
Whenever there's been a breach of data, all customers EXCEPT VLM will be notified... Any and all information that VLM will ever find or hear about it is 'nothing'...
See how you like them apples...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:03PM (7 children)
Privacy is possible, stop pushing the bullshit idea that it isn't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:15PM (6 children)
Possible but not possible. It's technically possible but since it would require fundamentally altering human nature it's not practically possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:29PM (1 child)
Someone could peek through your windows, break in and install secret cameras, and yet you probably have a pretty good expectation of privacy when you're in your own home. Seems to work quite well for nearly every human on the planet. No real need to alter human nature, but a real need to create laws for data privacy.
Ditto murder. Very possible, happens thousands of times a day on the planet, yet pretty much everyone goes about their day with the expectation of not being murdered.
Got any more shitty wisdom to distill?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @07:59PM
An expectation of privacy != privacy and that is what was claimed. You're never, ever going to have it as long as there is a financial incentive for others to deprive you of it; it's way too damned easy to take it away from you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:12PM (3 children)
So crime should be legalized because any other action requires altering funsamental human nature?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:00PM (2 children)
No, the expectation of not having this particular kind of fuckwadery should be abandoned though. It's going to happen. By all means, punish it like anything else we abhor as a society but don't go thinking you can ever get rid of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday July 07 2018, @10:51PM (1 child)
Let's not let perfection be the enemy of hood. I'm guessing that corporate violation of privacy will go way down if getting caught violating it is expensive enough and likely enough.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 08 2018, @03:14AM
Zactly. Just because you can't beat something doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it; it just means you're not going to win.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07 2018, @12:24AM (1 child)
What, say all the right things?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:01PM
Buy him one more Zima.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:48PM (8 children)
Honey, sweety, darlin... I'm not right-wing to anyone but the most extreme leftists but I get called that a lot and I absolutely think this falls under fraud even if you feel an absolute need to give corporations rights like human beings, which I do not agree with even a little bit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:29PM (4 children)
Why is that, do you think?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06 2018, @07:25AM (2 children)
Logically following what you quoted - and asked about - the answer has to be that there is a lot of extreme leftists.
(And as long as that's from the US point of view, it shouldn't be an insult to anybody. Most Europeans would be considered extreme leftists by US Americans. Just like we consider the US parties to be the extreme right and the religious right).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 06 2018, @08:55AM (1 child)
Either that, or TMB is just really a Ron Paul type of libertarian; you know, racist, sexist, egotistical, and not very well educated. Kind of a "Texan", or darn close to one.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:07PM
Just so you know, I'm pretty sure there's case law in Oklahoma considering those "fightin words" during the run up to the OU Sooners stomping the shit out of the UT Longhorns. There had to be. They can't afford to house that many inmates in the state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @11:31AM
No, obviously he's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:31PM
Sooo VLM is your alt account and you've been lying for years? Or did "MrPlow" submit the story for you and you just totally glossed over that I was replying to VLM?
Either way time to sober up!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:44PM (1 child)
Well maybe if you get called that a lot its cause you actually are and your sense of reality is off kilter.
If the shoe fits wear it sugar plum.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:12PM
Or maybe our current left wing is so extremist that they have no fucking clue what a centrist even looks like. Not that I'm a centrist. I'm a liberal. It's not my fault if most of the left chose to abandon values like individual liberty and equal protection under the law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:54PM (6 children)
Now on to the more important topic of does the company have to bake them a cake if they're gay?
Or, more-on-topic, if they discover a bunch of lead in a cake they sell you are they required to warn you about the brain damage it might cause?
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:18PM (5 children)
Teach the controversy! Brain Damage is a matter of perspective. People say that to give lead a bad reputation. What lead does is Brain Enhancement according to our panel of experts in favor of not regulating lead. Government regulation is always bad.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:49PM (4 children)
Brain damage is a social construct you racist, *phobe Literally Hitler!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:02PM (3 children)
Well at least it's not a violently imposed contract.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:08PM (2 children)
Did you know you can eliminate all your worries about those with a HOSTS file?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:10PM (1 child)
I got pulled over but when I pulled out my laptop to show the cop that I disallowed access to all law enforcement agencies she just laughed and gave me a ticket. Of course I had to do the drunk tests first, techies are so misunderstood!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 08 2018, @03:16AM
You didn't try to cover her in hot grits, did you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:56PM (2 children)
Truth in advertising should require that if they won't bake a cake for gay people that they should be allowed to publicly and loudly declare in the media that they serve Everyone!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:24PM (1 child)
Proofread
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:34PM
I think it says exactly what I meant.
At present, it would seem that truth in advertising would not let you say you serve everyone, if, in fact, you do not.
Yet the famous cake bakers did not serve everyone, but after being upheld by SCOTUS, said to the press that they served everyone.
Of course, a statement to the press is not an advertisement.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:26PM (10 children)
Not exactly slavery since they do get to charge the same price they charge anyone else for the same service. Boo Hoo, they can't refuse to bake the cake if the couple want a black bride and groom on top either.
The horror, a bakery that does wedding cakes might have to make a wedding cake at full price.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:00PM (9 children)
Erm... Didn't SCOTUS just rule that they could in fact refuse to create a custom cake for gay folks?
See, I'm in favor of that ruling but not for the reasons LWNJs would think. I believe it's our absolute right as Americans to be dipshit assholes if we so desire and I also believe I could start up a bakery next door that did serve gay folks and take enough of their business that they closed up shop and left me with all of the business.
Capitalism solves discrimination if the vast majority of the population are not in favor of that type of discrimination. People say "what a fucking asshole" and go to the shop next door. Personally, I'd make a giant, pecker-shaped cake and mix their spooge into the icing if they paid me to. Seems like people have been saying similar things about Trump's priorities when money is involved as well, now that I think about it. You know, "would sell his own mother" and the like.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:09PM (4 children)
That vast majority of the US dislikes Walmart, but their availability and low prices keep people shopping there. They may not like the store, but bottom line is most people can't really afford going to the other options. Most people are also not aware of every little abuse a company makes, so unless it blows up on social media then a business could discriminate and 99% of their customers would not be any wiser.
Thus why we have legislation to prevent discrimination of various types. Capitalism has resulted in a lot of abuses and the magic market fairy is about as real as the tooth fairy. Markets are 95% driven by pricing and decent products/results. If those 2 criteria are met then social outrage will hardly make a dent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:21PM (3 children)
What bullshit Berkeley echo chamber did you get this nonsense from? Pro-tip: if they like some aspects of Wal-Mart well enough to override the aspects they dislike and get them to shop there, it means they like Wal-Mart. That's how liking something always works. Even bacon has its downsides (grease splatter; ouch).
As for your economics thesis there, it makes me glad I made unicode work so I can sum up my feelings on it with this glyph: 💩
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:34PM
Oh hey Scarecrow when did you learn to type?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)
I mean...couldn't you use this same argument to say that heroin addicts really, really like being addicted to heroin?
Or people with weak willpower just like more things
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:29PM
No.
But you could certainly say that heroin addicts really, really like heroin, which is frequently true. That would actually be the same argument as used here.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:03PM (1 child)
Not quite, though it was heralded as such, but the ruling was much more limited. Basically, they said that the state was over-zealous in enforcing the law on this guy, not that the law was unconstitutional. This one guy gets off with a warning, but the law itself wasn't struck down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:17PM
Gracias. I haven't been in the mood to be pissed off the past couple weeks, so I haven't even tried to keep up with political news the small amount I normally do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06 2018, @07:34AM (1 child)
So, capitalism solves discrimination when discrimination has already been mostly solved. Got it.
When the vast majority are not in favor of the discrimination, the ones that are will usually be old people who aren't working anyway, and the remaining problem will be solved once they die.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:19PM
Not precisely. Read "not in favor of" as "not affirmatively supporting of" rather than "in opposition to".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:45PM
The gay wedding cake, important SC case. Good ruling, not great. Same thing with the case of the florist that didn't want to sell to the gays. Arlene's Flowers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:28PM
In a very convoluted way, thats true, because if someone stole my CC number the CC company eats all the charges, whereas if I tell the CC company that company XYZ lost my CC number and they cancel it before the theives use my number, I'm also out zero dollars but the CC company saves money.
Although the CC company is really a fraud insurance racket and we call get billed as a group.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:28PM (3 children)
Requiring an organization to disclose to people that it has screwed up and wronged them is quite different from being forced to advertise a service which it believes to be evil.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:03PM (2 children)
Nobody requires a business to provide a service they think is evil. If you think baking a cake for certain people would be evil, then don't bake cakes.
The law says you can't discriminate against specific protected classes. Sexual orientation is a protected class. Companies with poor security practices is NOT a protected class, so there's no problem with the government discriminating against them. You can assert that this law is invalid as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, but it can also be argued that it is protected by the Ninth Amendment right to retain non-enumerated rights. So it's a question of how those amendments are interpreted, which means it's up to the courts, and they've already ruled in favor of...both. Goddamnit, guys...
(Score: 2) by qzm on Friday July 06 2018, @05:58AM
No one forced a company to collect and store private information.
If they don't want to have to do these disclosures, don't collect and store that information.
Simple, really.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:27PM
Wouldn't fly. SCOTUS has been pretending the Ninth or Tenth don't even exist for a long damned time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:52PM (13 children)
Commercial entities have all sorts of "compelled" speech requirements. Nutrition labels, hazardous substance warnings, etc, etc.
Corporations are not people, and do not have the same freedoms people have. Even Citizens United doesn't go that far...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:50PM (11 children)
"This post is known by the State of California to cause cancer."
That's an example of something that can be required yet is utterly ineffective in the marketplace and appears to serves no useful non-comedic purpose, yet can be funny or interesting to debate.
Speech being compelled doesn't imply its useful or a good idea.
My guess is the equivalent of privacy's "prop65 will result in quarterly notices being mailed to all customers claiming their data might or might not have been stolen at some point in the last quarter, for all database owners on the planet. Or upon every login of every customer, a click thru notice that their data might have been stolen in the past, but eh, who knows. This will result in everyone ignoring every warning that's issued, especially the "important" ones.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:59PM (8 children)
"This product may contain nuts" is a very useful label for anyone who is allergic to nuts.
"This post is by VLM" is another very useful label for anyone who is allergic to nuts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:05PM (7 children)
I need to get that embroidered on the fly of all my jeans.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:08PM (5 children)
Be sure to remove your jeans before they begin the embroidery process.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:27PM (4 children)
And miss out on the chance for a free tattoo?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:39PM (3 children)
I don't think getting stabbed dozens of times with a sewing needle counts as a tattoo. You're getting crazier every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:06PM (2 children)
it's called a joke, you twat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:12PM (1 child)
Back atcha dumbass. My joke just made The Massive Buzzard the butt.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:30PM
No, paulej72 is the butt. It's thoroughly documented and even saved for posterity as quote 275 for #soylent on IRC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:09PM
A guy goes to the psychiatrist wearing nothing but clear plastic wrap.
The psychiatrist says, "Well, I can clearly see you're nuts."
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:13PM
Wow you're stupid. Like, really really stupid. Dementia settling in?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:03PM
So food allergies are not a real thing now?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:03PM
Well, they shouldn't be but we still go way too far towards that position if you ask me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:53PM (7 children)
So no more labeling the contents of products? No more health or safety warnings? Give me a break, companies are compelled to disclose a hell of a lot of things by law. Or is it another case of ‘but with a computer’?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:58PM (3 children)
I think it's less of "with a computer" than it is Trump being in love with success and big money. He promised to make it easier for Big Business to rape people, didn't he? The Supremes are aware of that, at the least, and may even be influenced by Trump's attitude. Maybe more influenced by the fact that Trump will soon appoint another lifelong justice to their ranks.
I today's America, big business can do almost no wrong. Just about anything short of actual human sacrifice on an altar of gold is alright.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:29PM (2 children)
You could have omitted the word almost.
A long time ago, in the early 2000s, I (briefly) had a coworker who was extremely against open source or anything to with open source, or creative commons, etc. Also he idolized Microsoft and IBM.
The first time I was telling him about Linux, his questions centered around money: "How do they make their money?"
The first time he actually "got" my explanation of open source, work being donated, and anyone could download the result; his immediate reaction was (and I quote): "They can't be allowed to do that!" I think his emotional reaction was because he recognized it as a threat to Microsoft's sacred business model. Develop code once, then sell cheaply made copies for obscenely more than recouping the development cost plus a handsome profit.
In our 'debating' there was a point where it became clear to me that he really seemed to believe that a corporation could actually do no wrong at all if what they did was profitable.
My point: there really are people who think like that. Yes, really. The live and walk this earth.
I wonder what he would think of Open Source in general, and Linux in particular today?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
We have at least 2 of them here, VLM (as he just made clear) and Khallow. Maybe Jmorris fits in there but he is too nutty to tell.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:15PM
I think I have the required number of demonstrations of faith to pass. I published a minor Linux distribution for a couple of years. I was there in the auditorium when Linus proclaimed His Godhood. I have heard St. iGNUcius speak. I even received a brief email (with code!) from Larry Wall back in the CueCat [beau.org] skirmish. So yeah, I believe in both Free Software AND the Open Source marketing perfected by ESR.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:28PM
So no more labeling the contents of products? No more health or safety warnings?
That's very clearly the goal. Or haven't you been paying attention to what every department of government in the executive branch has been doing since the 2016 electoral debacle?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)
For that matter, no more shareholder disclosures. And no more insider trading laws: After all, if the government cannot compel speech from a corporation, surely they cannot constrain speech from a corporation, and telling 50 buddies of upper management when to sell and buy the corporation's stock wouldn't be a problem, right?
Gilded Age, here we come!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Friday July 06 2018, @04:33PM
s/Gilded/Gelded/
;-)
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:55PM (1 child)
No one forced the corporation to do a crappy job of security. No one forced them to store my data on a public facing and/or public accessible machine. No one forced them to hire crap IT personnel. In all of this, Evil Corp was trying to save money, at my expense. When Evil Corp is "breached" and my stuff is accessed, then Evil Corp has a moral and ethical obligation to inform me, at the least. Those obligations should be codified into law, thus making it a legal obligation as well.
Does the disclosure make me any safer? Well, as has already been pointed out, not really. My data and/or my money has already been stolen. But, it DOES enable me to take actions that may (or may not) limit the damage caused by the breach.
Without any legal obligation to inform me, then Evil Corp can go on about it's business, pretending that no breach ever happened. They can sit back and watch as hundreds of people, or maybe even hundreds of millions of people, are exploited through the use of that data.
Does anyone want to tell me that the last alternative is NOT evil?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday July 05 2018, @05:00PM
My gut level guess is this law is brought to you by a handful of giant new york banks who are tired of eating stolen CC charges, not brought to you by a government caring about its citizens, or at least the people who live here. I'd LIKE to agree with you, although I suspect its unrealistic.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Spook brat on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:01PM (10 children)
From TFA:
I'd think that operating without a license and deliberately appearing as if they have one would be outside the realm of free speech and instead fall into the buckets of malpractice and fraud. Does this SCOTUS ruling also nullify consumer protection/truth in advertising laws?
<sarcasm>Those poor, oppressed entrepreneurs, prevented from lying to the public when offering services. If only speech were truly free in the United States!</sarcasm>
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:31PM (9 children)
What's with these crazy socialists who think they can tell me I'm not allowed to advertise my sugar frosted lead shot as part of a balanced breakfast!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:32PM (6 children)
Dude, I dunno what planet you've been living on but truth and socialism are not historical bedfellows. Besides which, socialism didn't even exist as a defined thing when we capitalists wrote our anti-fraud laws.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday July 07 2018, @12:48PM (5 children)
Have you SEEN advertising? Truth and capitalists don't seem to be well acquainted either. But one thing that is a constant if you tell a capitalist that they need to have at least a tiny grain of truth in advertising is they will call you a socialist.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:38PM (4 children)
Ah, I see. You seem to believe buying laws, lawmakers, and bureaucrats is a capitalism thing. You really should visit a socialist nation sometime. It's not just something that happens but is frowned upon there, it's so standardized that people will look at you like an idiot if you go in with the idea that it should be any other way.
But by all means, keep your rainbows and unicorns vision of socialist utopia where all our needs are fulfilled by free energy and energymatter conversion. It's not and never will be real but if that's what you need to get you through the day then I won't shout you down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday July 07 2018, @10:40PM (3 children)
So any criticism of capitalism, even a parody of capitalists who think any regulation no matter how reasonable is automatically hard core Soviat Socialism makes me a hard core Societ Socialist?
Got it!
Enjoy your sugar frosted lead shot, part of a balanced breakfast!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 08 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)
You can hardly be a socialist if you don't know what one really is, can you? Western socialists are basically lipstick lesbians.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 08 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)
I'm not the one making the claim every time someone regulates something.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 08 2018, @10:31PM
Fair enough. I shall modify my insults going forward then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:47PM (1 child)
No need to use lead. Use sugar. It's the American Way.
Introducing new Sugaroooos!
These delicious sugar frosted flecks of 100% pure sugar are glazed with a light coat of sugar and then covered in the golden goodness of glucose! Fortified with 12 essential sweeteners! If you eat Sugaroooos! you'll grow up to be big -- very big! We guarantee it!
So whine until your mom buys you new Sugaroooos! today!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 07 2018, @08:39PM
Oh, hey, thanks for reminding me. *adds sugar to the grocery list*
My rights don't end where your fear begins.