[HN Gopher] Attorney General Bonta Announces Settlement with Sep...
___________________________________________________________________
Attorney General Bonta Announces Settlement with Sephora on
CCPA/GPC Enforcement
Author : sebastian_z
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-08-24 17:32 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (oag.ca.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (oag.ca.gov)
| henryfjordan wrote:
| The settlement was for $1.2M and some promises.
|
| Sephora has more than 100 locations in California. I bet some of
| their more prominent locations charge close to that $1.2M in
| rent.
|
| What a pittance of a settlement...
| sillystuff wrote:
| I'm curious what HN folks' experiences with CCPA have been (from
| the consumer side)?
|
| For instance, I filled out a form for CCPA data deletion, at a
| very large data broker, to receive a report on data they had
| collected and to request my data not be sold, and then had
| evidence that my data was both retained and continued to be sold
| several months later.
|
| I wish surveillance was opt-in (yes, no one would and that is the
| point). It is quite a burden to try to "opt out" from data
| collection and sales with so many companies collecting,
| aggregating and selling this personal information.
| lelandfe wrote:
| You can cancel your NYTimes subscription with a click if you
| live in California. Anywhere else and you have to call and
| suffer their customer retention haranguing.
|
| Pretty much the only CCPA benefit I've seen.
| Shank wrote:
| > You can cancel your NYTimes subscription with a click if
| you live in California
|
| This is frequently echoed on HN, but my experience in
| California trying to cancel NYT is that option wasn't present
| at all. In fact, when I couldn't reach a human to cancel for
| an hour, I gave up and paused the credit card associated with
| NYT. They then got declined 3 times, and force posted the
| transaction without approval. Then, it took a credit card
| dispute to resolve, at which point NYT lost because posting
| transactions without approval turns out to be a per-se
| violation of Visa's merchant guidelines.
|
| So, I'm not sure if this is an account-based flag or AB test,
| but it isn't a universal fact that you can cancel NYT in
| 1-click in CA.
| chmod600 wrote:
| What is "force posting"?
| lelandfe wrote:
| Hm, well, they used to - and they're required to: https://l
| eginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
|
| > _The bill would require the business to provide a method
| of termination [of automatic renewal or continuous service
| offer] that is either online in the form of a prominently
| located direct link or button to cancel or by a termination
| email, as provided_
|
| If you've got some, uh, spare time and money - sue away!
| keneda7 wrote:
| I sure wish EPIC passes auto renew would be like this for CA.
| Even after calling EPIC its nearly impossible to get auto
| renew cancelled.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Most of the companies I've tried to opt-out from either don't
| recognize their obligations (you're not a 'customer' even
| though we're collecting your data), don't have a way to opt out
| short of contacting a legal department that has no public
| contact info, or failed to actually resolve the issue.
|
| I can only recall one case where I succeeded, in a couple dozen
| attempts.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| > short of contacting a legal department that has no public
| contact info
|
| All corporations are required to have an "agent for service
| of process" in the state they are registered in, and the
| secretary of state should maintain a lookup tool for this
| (haven't checked all 50 but it's common). Opt-out should take
| you approximately ten minutes - look up their agent for
| service of process, and send a certified letter explaining
| the action you want them to take to avoid the lawsuit you are
| considering.
| __derek__ wrote:
| > I wish surveillance was opt-in (yes, no one would and that is
| the point).
|
| The European Data Protection Board is moving in that direction
| for "virtual voice assistants": requiring active consent to
| store data beyond what's necessary to execute the immediate
| request.[1]
|
| [1]: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2021/july-7-12-plenaries-
| ad...
| keneda7 wrote:
| The fact that the CCPA does not apply to government agencies is
| completely outrageous in my opinion. The CA DOJ leaked thousands
| of citizens private information recently and nothing is happening
| to them. They even went through the trouble of building a UI to
| search the data released, so its pretty hard to claim it wasn't
| intentional.
|
| If we are going to hold companies to the CCPA should the agency
| in charge of enforcement not be held to the same standard?
| [deleted]
| mistrial9 wrote:
| on the other side, arguments like this can be used to stall and
| diffuse the actual implementation upon the most egregious
| violators. In an extreme scenario (like say tribe gaming laws)
| said violators could actually hire and "astroturf" this kind of
| "look, over there" sort of outrage. Perhaps you are genuine,
| but .. congratulations California and AG Bonta on at least this
| action, right?
| keneda7 wrote:
| So my argument that MORE people should have to follow the
| CCPA is somehow an argument to prevent implementations of the
| CCPA.
|
| Could you please explain your logic there?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| yes of course - the phrase is "the perfect is the enemy of
| the good" which means.. implementation of the law could be
| stalled or delayed, or the law could be challenged in court
| and reversed in the extreme case.. based on an argument
| that it is fundamentally flawed. A reason to be flawed is
| "not all covered parties are treated fairly" or something
| .. IANAL
|
| secondly, from a public relations "swindle" side, an ad
| campaign could be purchased that makes the argument that
| "this kind of law is obviously not OK" look at this
| ridiculous example, the State is not following the same
| requirements as business is.. or similar..
| keneda7 wrote:
| So I could see your argument if in my original post I
| said something about the law being wrong and needs to be
| removed. But I was careful not do that as I agree with
| most of the CCPA. I simply stated it is ridiculous that
| this law does not apply to more people. Especially when
| those people just leaked 200k+ sets of PII.
|
| Again I simply said more people should have to follow the
| CCPA, nothing about stopping or slowing it down. Yet you
| choose to try and invalidate my point by connecting it to
| something I very clearly did not say.
|
| From my point of view it appears that you just wanted to
| shut down criticism of the CA government because... well
| I have no idea.
| __derek__ wrote:
| While I think that data leak was horrible (and potentially
| disastrous), it's not clear how CCPA would apply in that case.
| keneda7 wrote:
| Check under Section A number 8.
|
| https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
| __derek__ wrote:
| Thanks. Somehow I didn't realize that driver's license
| number counted, but there it is.[1]
|
| [1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_display
| Text.x...
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The incident you're referring to was a concealed carry permit
| site that exposed data and it happened about a month or two
| ago, so it's premature to say "nothing happened to them." The
| data was accessible for about 24 hours.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-29/californ...
|
| You made up "thousands" as no numbers have been given . The
| incident has been widely condemned including by the state AG,
| and they're contacting anyone affected / providing credit
| monitoring.
| staringback wrote:
| I'm sure credit monitoring will help when criminals go and
| break into their homes to steal their firearms
| keneda7 wrote:
| The leak did not just expose ccw holders. It exposed ccw
| applications that were denied as well. DROS info was also
| available for a short time. I know exactly what was exposed
| because I looked myself up and I also received a the letter
| offering the IDX monitoring.
|
| I did not make up thousands, in fact the actual number is way
| higher... 200k ccw holders in ca. Simple google search: https
| ://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+ccw+holders+are+in+...
|
| The state AG is literally the person responsible so to say
| they condemned it is laughable. For example lets say I,
| keneda, somehow had all of your, KennyBlaken's, bank account
| numbers. I then pay someone to make a website with a UI to
| search for any of your account numbers. Then after all your
| account numbers publicly available and stolen I take it down
| and say oh I'm sorry I shouldn't have done that it was wrong.
| Sure I condemned the action but guess what I am still 100%
| responsible for making a publicly searchable user interface
| to expose data that is supposed to be private. The CA DOJ
| choose to have this searchable site made, it did not just
| magically appear on the internet.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| CA DOJ is completely and utterly shameless/corrupt. It is one
| of the most eggregeious institutions of America. They continue
| to violate basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the US
| constitution and then citizens of CA have to wait for 2 years
| of lawsuits to get their rights restored. They are also morally
| corrupt and will do anything in their power to tighten control
| over citizens of California.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Examples?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-24 23:01 UTC)