throwawayou812

18 ms·

1.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
If you don't put the information out there, then they won't have it. It's a simple cause and effect relationship. Not giving up this information will likely cause you to not be able to use some services, however you have no
2.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
That's not "moving goalposts" as you put it. Are you saying that you believe that they would allow such an enormous loophole in such a bill?
3.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
there's only one offense in the bill that includes that thread: knowingly certifying fraudulent data protection reports. That's what it says, but one would have to believe that failing to file such reports would also be a crimin
4.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
You are both right and wrong. Flappy Bird indeed had over 50MM users (in fact it had over 100MM users), and therefore its owner would have criminal liability under this law regardless of revenue . However you are right that the lower l
5.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
It starts with the claim that this law could put Flappy Bird on the hook for decades of prison time. I rebut, and you say (paraphrased) "no, read the law, anyone with 1MM users could be sent to prison for failure to comply". This
6.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
Not any bill, just bills with breathtaking fines and possible imprisonment.
7.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
You're referring to that specific provision, but again you aren't considering the fact that any business interested in complying will have to have an attorney review the law, and then review all aspects of their business, software
8.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
That's just not accurate. You should read pages 26-33 in detail. It wants external auditors to come in, and while consultation with a lawyer isn't required , companies would offensively have to use them to review everything the
9.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
Perhaps you could take some personal responsibility, and, you know, not give your email address to sites/apps that you don't want to have it?
10.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
Most competent lawyers cost $400+/hr. For them to review your internal compliance policies and procedures (including your opt-in/out procedures. etc), privacy policy, etc. you could easily be looking at a few hundred hours. That
11.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
A closer reading indicates seem to be correct that the criminal provisions only apply to those larger entities. However, ALL of the provisions in pages 26-33, which are significantly burdensome, still apply to All covered entities, which
12.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
That seems to be an entirely incorrect interpretation. Any app with more than 1 million users would fall under this law. You're simply reading it wrong, as the OP of this thread initially did. Any entity with personal information -
13.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
The plain language of the law says that your interpretation is not correct. The criminal provisions apply to companies with over $1 billion in revenue or those those that have 1M or more users. That would expose a much larger range of i
14.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
I'm not GP, but it looks like the more burdensome things are on pages 26-33, and they are too lengthy to post here. I can see compliance costing significant sums that would be out of reach to a typical startup.
15.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
I'm not going to let this go, because you are trying to deliberately spread information about how our legal system works that is factually false, and that is damaging both to HN and to our country. So let me make it clear: In our syst
16.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
They strongly implied that Mueller probably lied because they didn't have to tell the truth and no one could prove it. The comment literally says: "They didn't lie, they don't have to. Everything in this indictment ma
17.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper thi
18.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
And then the grand jury, completely independent of any judge, makes a decision as to whether or not to indict. Your argument is like saying the referees decide who wins the Super Bowl.
19.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
Grand juries indict people, not judges.
20.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish If you cannot arrest the people in the "low level indictments" or threaten
21.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
I think his point was that such a heavy handed policy that runs contrary to the views of most of the world's population is problematic. Since there will be situations where employees have little or no choice but to eat company sponsor
22.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
I dare say this is a horrible comparison. There are no circumstances under which employees are expected, or even required, to have sex at work (presumably at least not at a mainstream tech startup). There are, however, many situations whe
23.
by throwawayou812 8y ago
"As you might guess, this means that I don't do business with commercial airlines." It must be wonderful to be able to fly private, but that isn't an option for most of the people that are the subject of this conversatio