Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-post^W-amendment dept.

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.

Source: https://securityboulevard.com/2018/07/are-breach-disclosure-laws-unconstitutional-in-the-wake-of-supreme-court-abortion-case/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:26PM (10 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:26PM (#703049) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:09PM (#703120)

      Capitalism solves discrimination if the vast majority of the population are not in favor of that type of discrimination.

      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)

        That vast majority of the US dislikes Walmart

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @08:34PM (#703216)

          Oh hey Scarecrow when did you learn to type?

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:10PM (#703247)

          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.

          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

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:29PM (#703297) Journal

            I mean...couldn't you use this same argument to say that heroin addicts really, really like being addicted to heroin?

            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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:03PM (#703239)

      Erm... Didn't SCOTUS just rule that they could in fact refuse to create a custom cake for gay folks?

      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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06 2018, @07:34AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06 2018, @07:34AM (#703416)

      Capitalism solves discrimination if the vast majority of the population are not in favor of that type of discrimination.

      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.