US law does not end at their border. It now applies worldwide. Better get used to it. Well, until the second revolution, of course.
In the next few weeks, up to 100 mobile application developers will be getting a letter from California's government ordering them to install privacy protection warnings on their apps or face the legal consequences. The letters warn that "an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally …
I'll let you into a little secret. UK law does not end at our borders. Operators must also comply with our Data Protection Act and, just like California, we can fine those who don't comply. But, just like California, we might have a little difficulty collecting the fines from non-UK entities.
The San Andreas Fault is a right-lateral strike-slip transform fault. It skirts the left-most edge of Southern California, moving that edge in a north-north-west direction, with little or no separation from the North American Plate. It has absolutely zero chance of separating California from the Mainland. Unfortunately.
Also unfortunately, in several tens of millions of years, those of us in the Bay Area will have to put up with Long Beach & environs as neighbors ... Not that I'm losing sleep over it, mind ;-)
Considering that the internet has been around for quite a number of years now, you would have thought that politicans and their ilk would have had some inkling of how it works and it's limitations.
All these attempts at controlling the internet just shows these people for being absolute pillocks. At least Kamala Harris has put his name on the list of those who should be first up against the wall and shot for being stupid.
What should be controversial is the situation that the California law is trying to prevent: collecting crap on people with no indications of recourse and deletion policies.
Now, granted, California may have a tough time collecting a fine imposed on an entity that isn't located in California (or the US, come to that). But Kamala Harris presumable would factor that in before SHE prosecutes.
On the other hand, two of the larger App Stores are controlled by entities based in this state, so one could argue that, in return for (e.g.) Apples 30% slice of the proceeds, they get liability for letting bad actors into the walled garden. Which would soon result in Apple demanding privacy policies as a condition to being allowed through the gate. Which wouldn't be a bad thing for anyone (except scumbags, obvs).
Can only presume the disgruntled commentators have either not had their first cup of caffeinated beverage of the morning or are annoyed at having to add the extra code to their apps.
It's a rum pass when people complain about states enacting consumer protection law when it's such a modest requirement.
"Which wouldn't be a bad thing for anyone"
It would create unnecessary work for a lot of app developers that don't collect any personal information. The submission process is enough of a PITA already, thank you very much, without having to hire a lawyer to write a privacy statement (AKA sending a canned privacy statement and charging me £200).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022