[The bill] would require a... person or entity doing business in the state of California that collects, uses, or stores online data containing covered information from a consumer in this state to provide a consumer in California with a method to opt out of that collection, use, and storage of such information. The bill would, to the extant consistent with federal law, prohibit a covered entity from selling, sharing, or transferring a consumer's covered information. (emphasis original)
They think a lot of their impact on the financial economy of California. I too think that their bottom line is their chief motivator in opposing this law.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
Of course the bottom line is their motivator, as most of us would choose to opt-out of tracking. In fact, I can't imagine anyone actually choosing to be tracked. And if I can prevent the sale of my information, I would choose to do so each and every time!
"Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window."
Z77 GIGABYTE G1.SNIPER
G.Skill Ripjaws X 16gb PC2133
Asus Blu-ray burner
Seasonic X650 PSU
Patriot Pyro 128gb SSD
AHH..... the arrogance of liberal hypocrisy!
These are not the Droids you are looking for!
More important than whether cookies are tracking my online activities, is what is being done with that data, and by who. Devices like the iPhone and iPad tracking my physical location, without my consent or knowledge, is also quite disturbing.
Whenever politicians try to craft a bill with regards to complex things they have no working knowledge of, such as finance and the internet, it is invariably a recipe for disaster. Leave it to politicians to think that more legislation is the solution to every problem.
***** Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted. *****
AjayD:More important than whether cookies are tracking my online activities, is what is being done with that data, and by who
Al Franken is on them now.
The people who elected this guy got more than they bargained for. Every time I see him in a film clip or hear him speak, he sounds like he has a total understanding of the subject, and his constituents in mind. He's smart, and he can't be deflected either. Minnesota should be proud of him. He's like a Pit Bull.
The fact is that people don't like others keeping records on their activities and rightly so. I can't think of any good reason for your phone company to track your whereabouts unless you're a criminal and the Cops are after you, or maybe a runaway child that needs to be found. Their aggregate collection of data is unimportant and unnecessary too. You can bet your ass that they wouldn't do it if they couldn't sell that data to other companies and they're making a lot of money doing just that.
So, to sum it up, they will do crap to us and not tell anyone about it until they get caught, just to make more money. The fact that they do it on the sly makes it worse. They have no integrity.
Are they recording certain people's conversations? How do we know? If they were to monitor certain high level government official's phones, wouldn't they be able to possibly gain knowledge that would benefit their bottom line? Everyone in the US Government uses cell phones,........
They need to be regulated and policed to keep them in line because we already KNOW they can't be trusted to do the right thing.
I just read that Google has just "set aside" 500 Million Dollars to
defend against the government's investigations into their data handling
practices. How's THAT for a war chest folks? Half a Billion Dollars will buy a crap-load of obfuscation, will it not?
^^^ Nicely Said^^^
AHH..... the arrogance of liberal hypocrisy!
And this, by all appearances, is not the conversation topic you intended to comment in. This doesn't fit the definition of hypocrisy--hypocritical would be if Google and Facebook claimed everyone ELSE should be banned from using the tracking they use themselves on the grounds of customer privacy. This isn't about hypocrisy. At all. Google and Facebook are making arguments that make sense given their own business interests.
Secondly, this isn't 'liberal.' In fact, the argument that consumers shouldn't be tracked unless they give consent is the more liberal position, provided you understand the concept of 'negative liberty' as opposed to 'positive liberty' (freedom from vs. freedom to). Regardless, this isn't a political issue.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms