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: 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.