Slashdot Mirror
Governator Kills Data Protection Law
eweekhickins writes "The Governator has killed a recent data protection law in California, and it won't be back. Using a tried-and-true argument, that the bill would have 'driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses,' California Governor Arnold Schwartzenneger vetoed what some are calling one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws."
But it also outright prohibited much data being stored at all after a purchase is authorized by banning a retailer from storing "sensitive authentication data subsequent to authorization, even if that data is encrypted."
What about automatically recurring bills, like web hosting.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
I guess the above isn't illegal anymore, right Taco?
C'mon, I mean, seriously - whether or not you respect the man he has a name and a title, and you've used neither...
Bow-ties are cool.
How do one "kill" a law, really? Bah -- surely, Arnold must have terminated this law.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Grab my hand! You'll never have this data plan as long as I am around! No joke I think Arnold rocks!
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
Indeed. This was old years ago -- before the recall election was even completed. It doesn't help that even when his name did appear, it was spelled incorrectly ("Schwartzenneger" as opposed to the proper spelling, "Schwarzenegger").
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Here's the printer friendly version, with (somewhat) fewer advertisements.
http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=217199,00.asp
(posted as anon to avoid Karma whoring)
Actually, he used both at the end of the news post. He did however misspell his last name.
Oh, either relax and don't let it bother you, or go piss off. He may have a name and a title, but as everyone knows, a good nickname is much more important.
Signed,
Anonymous Coward.
Yes, Mr. Shitforbrains.
Couldn't they redraft the law such that there are several levels of compliance. If you deal with the info of less than 100 individuals you would have the least amount of requirements to meet, 1000 individuals would put you in the next level, and so on. That way the biggest targets are required to be the most secure, and the more information they deal with, the higher their compliance level would be.
Seems like a lot of companies out there today do not give the proper effort required to make even rudimentary considerations to the security of client data. This reminds me of an experience I had a few weeks ago. This is 100% true. I was sitting in a subway station waiting for a train. I sat down on a bench and noticed a plain unmarked vanilla envelope sitting on the bench next to me. There was no one else around so it was obvious whoever it belonged to had left it. I opened it and discovered it was several pages of customer records for a hotel chain (don't remember which). It had their names, what nights they had stayed, some additional information, and their FULL credit card numbers they had used to pay printed next to the names. I was amazed that someone would just leave this kind of information lying around anywhere for anyone to find.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
He must enjoy being called a black n**ger, as a part of some properly constructed sentence. :)
Yeah, just prepending "California" or even just "CA" might have made it an eensy bit clearer. But hey, slashdot isn't about that pretentious "old media" with all its "accuracy" and "clarity" and "fact checking". Pshaw.
I prefer "Gubenator", which sounds funnier when said with Schwarzenegger's accent, and it's actually the real latin word that "governer" comes from. But I wouldn't put that in a headline either.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.
So
What you saw is a perfect example of why LEGAL restrictions are needed. If it is LEGAL for a business to print out such information, then it WILL be stolen, eventually.
With the increase in "identity theft" it should be apparent to anyone that the "marketplace" is not capable of regulating itself.
All a "marketplace" does is ensure that those with the most power KEEP the most power. And right now that is not the credit consumer.
... It's a Total Recall!
-- thinkyhead software and media
When you deal with small businesses you are dealing with few employees, few resources, and so on. As such what they can do is limited. Now if you don't like small business, fair enough, but then remember that the alternative is large conglomerates like Microsoft.
So if you do want small businesses around, you have to make sure that you don't pass laws that force them out. For example, suppose you decided that in the interests of accessibility and such all businesses should be required to be able to take phone calls in any language that a sizable minority of Americans speak. So it turns out that companies need to support like 20 languages. For a large company, no problem, they grumble about it, hire more operators, raise prices and are done. A small business just shuts down, since they just cannot hire that many staff, even if they wanted to.
Now that's not to say that small businesses need a free pass on everything, but having the attitude of "They need to do this, I don't care how hard it is," is what leads to them going out of business and you having to shop at Walmart and buy MS. Big companies can play the game and deal with the stupid laws. The small ones can be killed by it.
I own a small business. I spend at least 1/3 to 1/2 of my time doing govt paperwork, or complying with some govt standard which is either 1) an obviously good business practice that does not need to be legislated or 2) irrelevant or 3) stupid or 4) #2 and #3.
These legislators live in a hypothetical world of zero risk. Any problem that they see, they try to legislate out of existence. But they don't have to pay the bills. They don't have to make the decisions of how limited resources are applied to problems.
With all the taxes that I pay, I could hire another employee. But these well-meaning legislators have effectively fired him before I could ever hire him.
Laws have consequenses. And someday the consequence may be your job.
I'm arguing the lack of logic in claiming that some fictional entity ("the marketplace") can provide protection in one instance ... but not in other instances.
So that certain instances require legal regulation.
But the fictional entity is used to justify the lack of legal regulation in the other instance.
I would hate to see the retardation government compliance laws in 50 different states would result in.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
Haven't you people learned by now that nothing, NOTHING, must stand in the way of Business making money? What are you on, some kind of Jimmy Stewart trip?
I, as an individual, prefer to be responsible for protecting my own data, rather than having a government nanny creating huge bureaucracies with great costs and making everyone's life difficult and not necessarily more secure. I really do not know much about this particular law, or whether its change was motivated by some multinational (in which case it's bad) or true concern for the costs to small businesses (which is a valid concern), but speaking generally I distrust data protection laws, as they can be used by governments for purposes other than protecting people's data. Yes, some laws are needed, but not too many. (IANAL)
Personally I think Governator is brilliant.
One another related point, there is no way he would have got elected as an European with his original name if he hadn't been a rich famous movie star. So referring to him in a way that reminds people WHY he was famous in the first point is actually useful in this case.
For those who still have not remembered, he was originally famous for being a body builder who probably has taken more steroids than I have had hot dinners and then starred in loads of vaguely amusing action movies where no acting talent or intelligence was required. He had still barely learned to speak English after living and working here for years, and that was with a small fortune behind him by the end of his Hollywood career.
So no, we are not in 6th Grade, but you would never know it judging be who we elect to make decisions for us sometimes.
(Disclaimer - I cannot remember who he was running against but it would not surprise me if some or all of them were worse.)
I dont read
It doesn't help reasoned debate when people jump right into name calling. No matter who you are talking about... M$ is lame for the same reason.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Then-Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the biggest candidate that he faced, and that was a very, very poor choice.
Schwarzenegger is widely regarded in business circles as savvy and intelligent, and before he made his biggest money in Hollywood, he'd become fairly wealthy in real estate. However, he ran as a moderate Republican and has turned out to be more liberal in many ways than the Democrat that he replaced. At least we get to see most of the bad deals that he makes, as opposed to Davis's multitude of closed-door, secret meetings selling off the state's future.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Laws kill you!
I can imagine that in the state of CA there must be a ton of internet businesses just dying to sell user data. And a lot of those companies will be directing some of their new revenue to the governor that made it all possible. If he can put an 'anti red tape and government bureaucracy' face on it, all the better.
Wouldn't that be 'terminates data protection law' ?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We need to have some level of protection when we give our information away. I seen all of the bad example out there even for the big companies like TJX. But for the small and medium size business they don't have the resources, or at least want to release these resources, to protect this data in this manner. I understand this from both side and the legislature should create a bill that has this protections for the consumers but for the small to medium sized business which can prove that they cannot afford such a system that they some for of tax break or something so they can get the system to protect us in California and hopefully this will spread to to the rest of the country.
Actually, his biggest opponent was Davis. Over 40% of the people voted to NOT recall him. If the courts hadn't made the braindead decision that he couldn't be on the general recall ballot, he probably would have been recalled, then rewon the election.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The Payment Card Industry standards are, at this point, simply a recommendation. Having built systems which process credit cards, I found that the change to comply with PCI (and prevent ID/Card theft) is one line. In one system, the full card number is in the system (encrypted) only from the time it is entered to the time approval/disapproval is returned. In fact, the card number is no longer needed to process a credit after the fact. The only information required is the merchant ID, the transaction ID and the approval code. That said, the only way that merchants are dunned is in response to an audit (very rare) or a breach (unfortunately less rare). The PCI standards allow for storing the card number as the last four (with X's filling the previous part), 4 X's and the last four or the last four alone. If your merchant gives you a receipt (and their copy shows also) any thing other than XXXXXXXXXXXX1234 (shorten for some incarnations of Visa and AMEX), XXXX1234 or 1234 complain loudly to the manager of the establishment as well as your card issuer. Reference the Payment Card Industry/Data Security Standard 1.1 (2005).
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Parent called the story synapsis on being childish, prejudicial and improperly edited in its wording. Such matters should always be considered when reading the news as we all know that the source and/or the writer of such news can create or attempt to create desired effects from the target market. Nowhere but in advertising pieces is this more true then in editorials and the submitter here would be the editor with Scuttlemonkey as the approving editor of eweekhickins submission.
Only remaining question was if it was put out as submitted or edited in any fashion, which would also be an appropriate topic of discussion here. Of course it can be argued that the moderators are editors as well, after all the one who moderated the parent offtopic is equivalent to the editor at the paper who hides a story in the generally unread by the majority portions of the paper.
Informative or insightful would have been a more appropriate moderation.
666
Hey, don't bash Arnie! Judging from Bush, the way he butchers English he could be President if he was born in the USA.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think he gets more respect as the 'Governator of California' than the 'Governor of California'
Schwarzenegger is widely regarded in business circles as savvy and intelligent...
Without mentioning that his brain is a Neural Computah.
e-tail? Isn't that what you get when you marry a robot?
There are many businesses that accept credit cards via third parties. The real "merchant" is this third party but all of the personal information (except for credit card number) is transmitted to the vendor/author/publisher/etc.
Amazon has a service for this, for example. Your personal information is being sold (in a manner of speaking) or at least transferred from the merchant to this vendor that is really selling you the goods. Wouldn't this violate many of the recent laws? I would certainly think it would.
I would imagine that such services are now possibly illegal to use in Canada. Maybe other places as well. Who knows?
he used his Governor powers to terminate a privacy bill. Was there ever a time more appropriate to call him the Governator?
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
That's what PAN print suppression is for. So instead of storing the whole credit card number you just store the first and last few digits, for example:
5454 xxxx xxxx 1234Then you store the cardholder name and date of the transaction, this is enough evidence for the credit card company to verify the transaction, but not enough for an identity thief to go on a shopping spree. :)
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
As the subject is regulation, I should add that due to unneeded regulations my business is much less efficient than it could be. It is not nearly as easy to quantify as the losses to taxes, but I estimate it is a job loss for one part-time person.
Football Odds
You sound like one of those 6th grade crybabies that everyone hated.
Don't like it? Go read another news site.
Editors? Where art thou?
Sorry, I browsed for another post to mod-up but nobody made the point that Schwarzenegger was spelt wrong.
C'mon, I mean, seriously - whether or not you respect the man he has a name and a title, and you've used neither...
When I hear complaints like this, they inevitably come from Republicans that were fond of saying "Slick Willie" or Democrats that have uttered the words "Tricky Dick." Nicknames are popular in politics. They are popular in use by friends as well as supporters of the other party. If you don't like the divisive nature, you are in the wrong country. Try a place that doesn't have a two-party-only system.
Oh, and it uses both his name (well, a character name) and title together, so it isn't neither, it is both.
Learn to love Alaska
connection TERMINATED with error: 404.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Your calulations are overly simplistic.
You are assuming that every dollar is of equal value to me. This is not the case. This is an instance of diminishing returns.
As the business earns more money, I can make the decision to either do the work myself or to hire someone to do it. Initially to meet my living expenses, I'll do all the work myself ( yes, there were times when I did 80+ hour weeks ). But, after earning a comfortable living, I am now making the decision: do I want more time or more money. When I hire the new employee, I do less work.
If I had more disposable income, I would buy more time. ( ie: I would hire an additional person )
Furthermore, employees do not exist in a vaccuum. They require places to work. And real estate cannot be allocated piecemeal like ram. One cannot assign a profit-per-person value to an employee and expect to implement it repeatedly. If one could, then every business would be crammed with employees like sardines in a can.
The "Don't host anything in California Act"
The "Not Available Online to California Residents Act"
and more...
Sorry, but in world of nearly a billion people online, California's market of 40 million isn't as much worth the pain in the ass they keep regulating it to be.
This is my sig.
Now SkyNet can locate the correct Sarah Conner.
Have gnu, will travel.
Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary. If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant.
I don't see why it's so difficult for you to understand, if you raise the taxes or regulation cost per employee on a business, then it's easy to cross over the threshhold where you no longer earn more from that employee than it costs you in salary and increase in mandated expenses. In addition to direct expenses per employee, you have to train the employee to deal with the new regulations and bureaucracy grows as the employee base grows and as the regulation burden grows. Second, there's the matter of cash flow. The weaker a business's cash flow the harder it is for them to expand their business. Regulations like this consume cash flow. The business has to spend to stay in compliance.I would check out who you contact at Visa/Mastercard. This is a pretty serious violation of security reqirements, and the hotel chain could be fined substantially for the lapse in security. Note that if you have the full credit card number and the customer's address, you can basically get AVS-type queries to pass. I would suggest helping ensure that it gets turned in to Visa/Mastercard.
I am not quite sure what the fine is for something like this, but the maximum (when credit card numbers are actually stolen) is about half a million dollars per incident.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
+offtopic and +insightful?
come on mods, where is the +funny that this guy was obviously going for...
Actually, he used both at the end of the news post. He did however misspell his last name.
Oh was that a mispelling? I thought he changed 'Egger' ('Acker' in Hochdeutsch -- acre, field) to 'Neger' (negro) as a dig. Well you know what Freud would say ...
Most of my customers are small businesses which also process credit cards. What you have to remember is the controversial portions of the law are *already* requirements for small businesses which process credit cards. I invite you to read the PCI-DSS 1.1 (and yes, there are a lot of non-compliant small businesses out there).
Now the PCI-DSS does not really have the force of law at the moment, but it might as well. Visa/Mastercard reserves the right to fine merchants up to half a million dollars for violations resulting in theft of sensitive cardholder information. Many smaller fines are levied against businesses who are required to certify their compliance with third parties (these are either larger businesses or those who have had past problems).
This isn't about an attack on smaller businesses. Businesses *should* be doing this already. If they don't they are already risking their continued operations. Hopefully such a law would help build awareness of these sorts of problems and help small businesses actually avoid problems. Yes, compliance is a bear, but already the costs of noncompliance, as levied by Visa/Mastercard are sufficient to drive small businesses out of business.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
One another related point, there is no way he would have got elected as an European with his original name if he hadn't been a rich famous movie star. So referring to him in a way that reminds people WHY he was famous in the first point is actually useful in this case.
He got elected because, in the economic downturn of the dot com bust, California's budget went from a surplus to a deficit. So everyone blamed Gray Davis and voted for Schwarznegger instead.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
the issue of compliance goes away.
In fact, the requirements are basically copied from the PCI-DSS 1.1 which Visa/Mastercard require compliance with anyway (and reserve the right to "fine" you for up to half a million dollars for losses of credit card numbers if you fail to comply).
This is at best political posturing and at worst a dangerous illusion for small businesses.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If you accept credit cards, you already have to comply. Look up the PCI-DSS, and note that Visa/MC already require everything that was in this bill. Note too that Visa/MC already reserve the right to "fine" you for noncompliance (if you have a merchant account) up to $500,000.00 USD.
Yet most small businesses have *no* idea what is required of them. This passage of the law would have helped businesses avoid problems which could put them out of business.
Please note that my business is fairly small and most of my customers are small to midsize buinesses. I sympathize with the concern over too much regulation but this particular case is something which would not have added practical regulatory issues and would have helped publicize what credit card merchants are required to do anyway.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If a business has not got enough resources to hire another employee, then they can't hire an employee. If a small business has super-normal profit (I think that is the right term - profit beyond what is needed to make the owner stay in business) then it makes perfect sense to reinvest in the business, buying capital or labour.
Taking resources away from a business == less employment is a perfectly valid argument. Capitalists believe in wealth creation too :-)
The PCI-DSS 1.1 states: 5.1: Deploy anti-virus software on all systems commonly affected by viruses (particularly personal
computers and servers)
Note: Systems commonly affected by viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating
systems or mainframes.[emphasis mine] Next time someone complains about the PCI-DSS requiring antivirus software on Linux/UNIX systems, you can point them to the fact that the standard specifically excluded these systems from the antivirus requirements.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The basic thing is that another multinational enforces a contractual provision against all merchants big and small, doing business in various parts of the world. That multinational is Visa/Mastercard. And they levy fines of up to $500,000.00 USD for noncompliance.
All this law would have done practically speaking would have been to encourage small businesses to protect data properly. Right now, I don;t think most of them know what they are required to do. It is a shame and nothing more than political posturing which creates a dangerous illusion.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Much as I dislike cheesy nicknames, if I were in California, I'd be reminding myself I had "the Terminator" (and other science fiction characters) as governor too.
seriously, THIS is +5 worthy, mods?
This guy has obviously never tried to run a small business.
I've always preferred "Conan the Republican."
They are basically cut and pasted from the requirements that the payment card industry places on merchants anyway. V/MC "levy fines" of up to a half a million dollars in the event of noncompliance which results in credit card data theft. This law would have helped buisnesses avoid fines which would result in bankrupcy by helping them understand what they were required to do.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I wonder if he gets a speech trainer to help him _keep_ his accent.
After all just imagine what would happen if he loses his accent. Imagine an Arnie movie with Arnie speaking in English but without his accent.
Simply the sort of thing that a Republican governor would do. Protect the interests of the common man when it might cost the corporations a little profit? Nope; not the Republican way...
That argument is quite stupid. Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary. If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant. Or you don't have a use for a new employee, which means that $value_of_work less than $salary, which means no hire. Tax has nothing to do with that decision. It's a great way to raise sympathy for your cause though (more money). However, no business owner would rather hire someone than pocket the money if the latter is more profitable.
Wow. You start out with mean words, and then commit the same crime yourself. Try your own logic when you take the numbers to the extreme....
Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary.
Higher taxes raise the cost of the employee. Therefore, the employee would have to generate more wealth to compensate. This means that either the employee works harder, less, or not at all.
If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant. Or you don't have a use for a new employee, which means that $value_of_work less than $salary, which means no hire. Tax has nothing to do with that decision.
You're missing an incredibly important factor of the formula, rendered in ternary pseudo-code notation so that you can understand it, since that seems to be important to you:
$hire= ($value_of_work > ($salary + $taxes)) ? TRUE : FALSE ;
Actually, it would go something like this:
$hire= ($value_of_work > ($salary + $taxes + $overhead + $hassle + $arbitrary_risk_assessment)) ? TRUE : FALSE ;
How do you figure that taxes don't figure in here? It's like saying that sales tax makes no difference when buying goods. Challenge that by raising your tax rates to 200% of the sale price... What would that do to your purchasing?
Please discuss economics AFTER you have a baseline comprehension of it...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Have you ever heard of the concept of humor? You know, one of the features that distinguish Slashdot from the mainstream sources it is quoting?
They don't seem to close or kill small business in EU, isn't it ? Last time I looked the big conglomerate were not the main employer in many country, the small enterprise cover more than 50% of the jobs (66% for France for example), with an increasing tendency in the last few years (~60% 1985 for France up to 66+% today, I took the example of France because this is the first which came up in google). So REALLY if data protection law killed small enterprise, we would know by now.
PS: Although I must admit that there are dissenting voice saying that now big enterprise make the bulk of the economy near the 51% if you count small filial as belonging to the main big enterprise. See TUC report for UK for example.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here in belgium we have a minister of paper-simplification (I don't realy know how to translate it correctly from dutch to english).
Whichever mod though that was insightful is an idiot.
When I hear complaints like this, they inevitably come from Republicans that were fond of saying "Slick Willie" or Democrats that have uttered the words "Tricky Dick." Nicknames are popular in politics. They are popular in use by friends as well as supporters of the other party.
But popular in use where? Lunch chat, yes, front page of Washington Post, I'd say no. And while nicknames may be popular in more casual writing... we aren't here to discuss politicians, we are discussing legislation. (Spot the difference?)
Try a place that doesn't have a two-party-only system.
Like Slashdot?
[And I prefer Tricky Willie & Slick Dick, myself. Along with Burning Bush & AI (not "Al") Gore, but I have a truly afwul sense of "humor".]
To the degree a regulation creates new expenses, it's bad, but if you are not going to pay the new expense, it appears insignificant.
To the degree that a regulation redistributes an existing expense more fairly, it is good, but if you weren't paying those cost before they appear to be new.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Do you honestly believe that the man doesn't think being called the Governator is funny? His primary fame came from those movies. It isn't like they are calling him anything inherently derogatory. He was famous for being the Terminator, he is the Governor, he is the Governator! Big deal, don't get your panties in a twist over a dumb nick name. I really suspect that he probably thinks its funny that people call him that, shit, it wouldn't surprise me if he likes the nickname given that he got it for being wildly successful.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Well as a business owner of course it's good for you if somebody else absorbs the cost of the risks you take.
So if the choice is paying, say, $100,000/year to safeguard sensitive personal data you have in your posession, or simply ignore the possibilty that the data might be stolen or misused. If you protect your customer's privacy, you're a good man. If you don't, you're $100,000 richer.
Now here's a pretty legal conundrum: if one of your customers has his data stolen because you didn't take reasonable steps to protect it, it costs him a great deal, in lost credit, reputation, and personal anguish. How much of the dollar cost are you responsible for? Surely not all -- the identity thieves themselves must bear most ofthe responsibilty. On the other hand, surely not zero, for the customer would never have been exposed to the thieves if it weren't for your failure to take reasonable steps.
It's clear you bear some responsibility, but the fact there is no way to quantify your contribution to the customer's loss bears on a bug in the law. If the damages cannot be quantified, you are completely off the hook as far as liability is concerned. The customer can get injunctive relief. The courts can say, "stop doing that." But that's it.
One thing the legislature can do is specify a standard damage figure. Let's say that your negligence leads to identity theft of a customer. They can say that if you negligently contribute to that, you are responsible for $1,000 of "per se damages", whether the total actual damages suffered by the customer are $100,000 or $1,000,000. It sounds reasonable and manageable. It may be enough (in aggregate) to motivate your less morally scrupulous competitors to match your principled investment in customer security.
But remember the anguish suffered by the customer? The humiliation? The year of his life devoted to dealing with a stupid credit rating crisis? Once he has handle on your for the $1,000 of damages, he can also add the cost of those things, plus payback.
This leaves us with three options.
Option 1: leave things as they are. This is good for your unscrupulous competitors, maybe not so good for you. Definitely bad for consumers (including you in your role as consumer).
Option 2: specify "per se" damages. Unfortunately, you'll never know how much protection is "enough". Enough is enough to convince any conceivable jury you did your duty. Better add to your liability insurance.
Option 3: regulatory oversight. Expect having to file data security reports.
Which approach is least burdensome to society as a whole? Which of these can businesses manage to deal with? Overall, a well designed regulatory regime is probably the most predictable and manageable. On the other hand, it's always possible for regulations to be drafted that don't do the job and cost a lot of money. It depends on who is running the regulatory agency, in this case, ultimately, the governor of California.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's just dumb, is all. "I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger was in this movie when I was a kid, and now he's a governor! Sounds like it's time for a portmanteau!" It's fine to poke fun at the guy, but if you're going to refer to the man in a news story you ought to use his proper name and/or title at least once in the story...
I could give a flying fuck about what Arnold thinks of his various nicknames. I am just embarrassed that a group I'm a part of is showing so little imagination in its attempts to be clever... I'd rather see some semblance of dignity rather than a cheap, extremely lame joke...
Bow-ties are cool.
Goodness, we don't want to make businesses pay money for stuff.
Arnold: the business community had no problem spending money to build the infrastructure to take our privacy away. They must have collectively spent hundreds of billions on the computer systems, the software, and the deals they made to trade the details of our lives to the highest bidder. They are now cooperating with a police state unrivaled in history, giving over our finances, our communications, our very second-to-second physical locations to shadowy figures who sneer at the courts.
They also have no problem making billions exploiting the data they spent so much money accumulating and processing.
Businesses have no "right" to accumulate data and exploit it anymore than they have a right to dump poison in a river. Profit for shareholders is not an excuse. You want to be bastards, pay the bastard tax. And corporations are government creatures, not freeholds. They exist under government license. They have NO OTHER existence other than through the government. Without the government, they are just shopkeepers with known addresses. They are shielded from liability and personal exposure for crimes. You want to play with the government, play by the government's rules. Cry me a river.
Arnold should have applied the statement, "driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses," to the ridiculous, useless, and costly microstamping firearms law he signed in California.
Even if you're a hardcore anti-gun zealot, that bill was pretty silly.
While there are a variety of taxes, the most common is income tax which applies to profits. If you're losing money on the extra employee then you won't be paying taxes and you might even get a tax credit.
What the government does do though is to force you to spend your profits on things you wouldn't necessarily spend them on. For example, you might prefer to spend your profits on 25% hookers and 75% blow but the government comes along and takes your profits and uses them to buy you 75% hookers and 25% blow. Now you've got yourself too many hookers and not enough blow.
It gets worse than that though. All the hookers keep you awake all night and then you don't have enough blow to keep yourself awake for your day job at the blow factory which slows the production of blow which creates a shortage of blow which drives up the price of blow which means that the 25% of your profits that the government is using to buy you blow now buys you less blow. Eventually, the cycle continues and you run out of blow entirely and the economy grinds to a halt.
Of course the government could also takes your profits to buy you some shared infrastructure, such as roads, that would actually allow your business to function - but why would they do that when there's hookers and blow.
Agreed. Through driving up manufacturing costs and making it harder for manufacturers to comply with their regulations (especially the smaller ones), the anti-gun zealots are effectively using a back-door method of curtailing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Since they're losing ground on their contrived assertion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, they're essentially taking whatever steps they can to effect their agenda by other means.
In tests, the durability of microstamps on breach faces, extractors and firing pins on semiautomatic handguns has been called into question. Nevermind the fact that not one case has been solved by Maryland's "ballistic fingerprint database" (a similar system) to date and resourceful criminals could remove the stamps or replace parts with unstamped ones. What's to stop a criminal from scooping up my spent shell casings at the firing range and leaving them at a crime scene to throw off investigators, or just using a revolver that doesn't leave cases behind? What about reloaded cartridges with multiple stamps?
While touted as a "common sense" measure by anti-gunners, with seemingly no good reason for opposition, this law is actually wasteful of law-enforcement resources. Plus, it's an undue burden on manufacturers and gun owners, which is exactly what they want.
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
So, why doesn't anyone ever seem to be upset about calling Reagan "The Gipper". Same thing...same exact thing even, because it was also from a movie role. Governator is also a hell of a lot easier to spell than Schwarzenegger. I don't see it as undignified, insulting, or anything to be even remotely upset about. It's like the little emo cry baby guy screaming "Leave Britney Alone." I have a difficult to spell/pronounce last name so I have had more nicknames, shortenings, and whatnot that I can count. It doesn't bother me, and actually frequently am amused by the nicknames people come up with (assuming they aren't being derogatory pricks).
YOU think its a cheap extremely lame joke. Most people think its just an amusing nickname and most people don't give a shit about it. I would even be willing to give you some leeway on the argument with "Slick Willie" or "The Shrub" or even "King George" because those were meant to be largely derogatory.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Oh and by the way you should at least read the summary and article once before going off on it.
"The Governator has killed a recent data protection law in California, and it won't be back. Using a tried-and-true argument, that the bill would have 'driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses,' California Governor Arnold Schwartzenneger vetoed what some are calling one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws."
Okay...I see 1 Governator reference in the title, 1 Governator reference in the summary, and oh...wait...what is that?! His full freaking title and name and title!...So look at that, used at least once just like you said. Now read the article. I count no less than 7 times he is called governor, 5 uses of his last name, and 0 governator lines. So once again, what the hell are you whining about?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Geez, dude, why so defensive?
Just calling it like I see it. I think it's a feeble joke, so I said so. It doesn't help that the article calls attention to it by putting it - not in the summary somewhere, but right on the headline where everybody can see it. If I'm in a group of people, telling a joke, shouting it out so it can be heard over the normal conversation... and that joke sucks... of course people are going to tell me it's not funny.
I am not saying don't tease the man. He is certainly a source of countless laughs. Just, you know, make it a good one, or don't bother.
And, yes, I screwed up in my last post. Good catch.
Bow-ties are cool.
Because more people want him elected than want him not elected. At the very least, if you want to do some sort of runoff do a true runoff. I garuntee you every politician in the US has more than 50% who would prefer someone else. That sort of braindead system pretty much garuntees all incumbents will lose recalls.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Because honestly, being able to say stupid shit about our elected officials is a rather critical point in remaining free. The day we MUST remain respectful to those with political titles is a dark dark day for the people. So you might as well enjoy it before Dubya get supset about beign called the Missing Link and bans evolution theory outright.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
We're talking about California and you're talking about Minnesota. Try and keep up now.
And yet, if said stupid shit makes my eyes roll, you win a STFU. Jokes ought to be funny.
Bow-ties are cool.