Actually, just need to prevent detection of autoplay disable
If website can't detect autoplay disable, it can't do a workaround.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49939436/how-to-detect-if-chrome-safari-firefox-prevented-autoplay-for-video
531 publicly visible posts • joined 24 May 2010
You've not worked much with good sales people either, I suspect. For every commercial (maximum profit oriented) outfit, it's the key to success. Good sales people win business for mediocre products by relationship. Good marketing/business people work with sales to ensure that the market leading products aren't under-priced.
Amazon (AWS) falls under 702 FISA, which means US government has access to the data, so AWS storage is not allowed for EU citizen's data under GDPR.
https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps-eu-companies-faqs
Since UK has been playing fast and loose with UK patient records to make money, this will be interesting.
Ashley Gorski (ACLU)
@ashgorski
Some reporting is suggesting that the SCCs will remain viable mechanisms for any EU-US transfer. Based on the court's analysis of US law, that's simply not the case. DPCs will be required to halt data flows.
https://twitter.com/ashgorski/status/1283756155152596994
Unfortunately surveillance isn't just about catching bad guys (oh, think of the children!), partly because the most successful criminals are protected by the status quo because they are an untouchable part of the fabric. It's about keeping tabs on those challenging the status quo (think whistleblowers), and those protesting the status quo.
This doesn't stop spies spying.
This stops businesses passing private data to others (including governments).
If data is used in a court case, it may matter how the evidence was obtained, partly in the legal admissability sense, partly because the method used to obtain may have to be disclosed... spying orgs don't like that.
Yes. Useful summary here: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/07/you-were-only-supposed-to-blow-bloody.html
"Schrems reformulated his complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) about data transfers arguing that the United States does not provide adequate protection as United States law requires Facebook Inc. to make the personal data transferred to it available to certain United States authorities, such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the data is used in a manner incompatible with the right to private life, and that therefore future transfers by Facebook should be suspended."
See https://noyb.eu/en/CJEU-Media-Page
Vera Jourová didn't tell the truth. SCCs are not valid where US gov by US law gets to see the traffic. So not Facebook etc. For bank transactions, fine.
See https://www.twitter.com/maxschrems
"It seems that @VeraJourova is simply ignoring the #CJEU a second time here. The Judgement is clear that you can't just use the SCCs again and there is no "toolbox" to be used when a US company falls under #FISA and alike... "
Two years ago I was at an automatic gearbox rebuild specialist (two guys and a large floorspace) looking under a Mini bonnet. The new small BMW one, which is crammed in there. I forget what the hours were to pull out and put in, but a lot. They said that the car was left there by a warranty company who wanted these guys not to rebuild the existing automatic gearbox, but instead to swap out the automatic gearbox for a supplied reconditioned unit. They refused, because the "reconditioned unit" was likely shite, and they'd be lumped with labour costs of swapping it out again.
You have it in reverse for USA. Only the people on the top floor will have contracts, which spell out every term of employment, separation etc. It binds both ways.
The minions don't have contracts, and can resign or be terminated without notice. That's what 'at will' means.
In UK, full time employees expect a contract by right, and if a company doesn't issue it then the terms are normally the best an employee can wish for under challenge.
...provision of the CCPA allows businesses the opportunity to avoid a consumer suit under the private right of action provision by “curing” the violation of “its duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices” that resulted in “unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure” of the consumer’s personal information. To pursue statutory damages under the CCPA, would-be plaintiffs must first provide the would-be defendant business with 30 days’ written notice that the data security provision of the CCPA has been violated. Id. § 1798.150(b). The business then has 30 days to “cure” the violations and provide the plaintiffs with “an express written statement that the violations have been cured and that no further violations shall occur.” Id. If the business does so, then the plaintiff may not request statutory damages in a subsequent suit.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-closer-look-at-the-ccpa-s-private-28984/
It's not a question of trusting the citizen. It's a question of maintaining the status quo by detecting potential threats to the military-business complexes and defusing them before they materialise. Not bomb threats, political threats like effective leaders in civil disobedience, or rising popular and effective polititians like AOC getting into office.