Slashdot Mirror
California AG Gives App Developers 30 Days To Post Privacy Notice
Trailrunner7 writes "California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced a crackdown on mobile application developers and companies that haven't posted privacy policies, at least where users can easily find them. The attorney general is giving recipients 30 days 'to conspicuously post a privacy policy within their app that informs users of what personally identifiable information about them is being collected and what will be done with that private information,' according to a prepared statement. A sample letter defines the issue at hand. 'An operator of a mobile application ("app") that uses the Internet to collect PII is an "online service" within the meaning of CalOPPA. An app's commercial operator must therefore conspicuously post its privacy policy in a means that is reasonably accessible to the consumer. Having a Web site with the applicable privacy policy conspicuously posted may be adequate, but only if a link to that Web site is "reasonably accessible" to the user within the app.'"
Why treat mobile apps as a special case? All software applications, client-side or web based should be treated the same way.
Instead of attaching a sample compliance letter, why didn't the AG attach a sample privacy policy and open source it so that developers can use it?
Pasting in a generic document is much more likely to happen than all those app developers running out and hiring lawyers, so she will either get lower compliance or shoddier privacy policies.
Is it too much to ask that government take the lead in this case? I can't imagine it costs the AG anything, since that office hires a staff of lawyers.
With only 30 days to get a policy written and added to the app, I guess that means that most iPhone apps will not be able to comply.
Don't like it? Stop using the app you paid for!
No refunds. Sucks to be you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The article contradicts itself. Early in the article, it states that the policy has to be within the app, then later on, it says it has to be in the App Store. There's a huge difference between the two in what it means for app publishers.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
In UKRANE Capitalist Country!!!!! DOES Not apply.
Hahah.
$$$$$
Does this guy expect app developers from other states to comply with the laws of California? What about developers from other countries?
http://flock.codeweavers.com/
What it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossOver_(software)
"CrossOver (a.k.a. CrossOver Office before version 6.0) is the collective name for two commercial and proprietary programs developed by CodeWeavers that allow many Windows-based applications to run on Linux and Mac OS X using a compatibility layer. The programs include CrossOver Mac and CrossOver Linux.
The programs are modified, proprietary versions of the public Wine source tree with various compatibility patches added, more user-friendly configuration tools, and commercial support. CodeWeavers employs several Wine developers and contributes code back to the free software/open-source software Wine project as per the GNU LGPL, although CrossOver is proprietary software."
On October 31, 2012, CodeWeavers will have a second software giveaway, this one entitled "Flock the Vote." CodeWeavers promised to have such a giveaway if 100,000 American voters would promise to vote on election day, in a nonpartisan bid to encourage activism. 100,000 people have pledged, so CodeWeavers will allow any person in the world to download and register a copy of CrossOver Linux or CrossOver Mac; the offer includes a year of support.
http://securityflakes.livelyblog.com/2012/10/31/get-crossover-for-free-now-today-only-oct-31st-2012-another-non-security-post-but-if-you-use-linux-or-mac-you-should-really-try-this-out-now/
OK, it's official, "app" is known to the State of California to be defined as a "mobile application".
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I disagree that it's going to be that different. If they need to list different data fields that will be retained, or change a length of time, they can edit the open-source document for their specific needs. But this gives them a template to work from which has all of the lawyerese perfected.
I can't agree that the document will differ in every case. In my experience, the differences will be slight, and thus having an open source document would encourage programmers to adopt a general standard (like a community rule) for how they're going to approach privacy issues.
The result would be a raising of the overall standard to that of the proposed document, which is why it's a good idea to have professionals write it and "promulgate" it.
There's a lot of pushback against bullet points, with people talking about "The Power Point effect," where somehow reading a lot of bullet points turn ordinary people into morons. I'm with you -- I think whatever works to make the simplest and clearest communication is best. Going to the level of memes might be taking it too far, but no one's suggest that yet thankfully.
CalOPPA Gangnam Style!
Fuck mobiles, fuck apps fuck appstores, fuck the AG
App Cause CANCER!!!
Permission: Fine GPS position (to verify that you're not in california, so as to not show it)
This just sounds like a really good reason to put in a data field for state when signing up for an app, and exclude Californians from use of the app, and explain to them because over burdening regulations our App is not available in your state, please contact the California Attorney Generals office for more information regarding these regulations. While there a lot of people in California, sometimes it's best to just avoid states or places where your work is not appreciated.
...and doing nothing more than his or her job: to ensure that the state enforces that which by law it must enforce. Period.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Sorry AG, you cannot enforce your laws across borders.
Have a nice day.
FREE rootkit and virus for fucking muppet officials
WHO NEEDS APPS!? WHO NEEDS DEVELOPERS!?
LET'S JUST SHOOT THEM ALL EH? AG of CA?
alternatively
Here's my policy, I post it HERE ONE TIME BITCH.
I collect every fucking bit of every byte of every packet that even comes close to touching my app, then I sell it to blackwater psychopaths and oath breakers holding office and banksters controlling the monetary system, who then exploit every bit of every byte of every bank account, believed freedom, and add it to the classified kill list. Really if you just look at the spy policy of all the piece of shit companies like google, facebook, AT&T, comcast, etc and then roll them all into a giant fucking ball to destroy motherfuckers with, that's my privacy policy bitch.
30 days in the hole
30 days in the hole
30 days in the hole
Dear California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris:
Go pound sand.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't live in California.
http://flock.codeweavers.com/ [codeweavers.com]
What it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossOver_(software) [wikipedia.org]
"CrossOver (a.k.a. CrossOver Office before version 6.0) is the collective name for two commercial and proprietary programs developed by CodeWeavers that allow many Windows-based applications to run on Linux and Mac OS X using a compatibility layer. The programs include CrossOver Mac and CrossOver Linux.
The programs are modified, proprietary versions of the public Wine source tree with various compatibility patches added, more user-friendly configuration tools, and commercial support. CodeWeavers employs several Wine developers and contributes code back to the free software/open-source software Wine project as per the GNU LGPL, although CrossOver is proprietary software."
On October 31, 2012, CodeWeavers will have a second software giveaway, this one entitled "Flock the Vote." CodeWeavers promised to have such a giveaway if 100,000 American voters would promise to vote on election day, in a nonpartisan bid to encourage activism. 100,000 people have pledged, so CodeWeavers will allow any person in the world to download and register a copy of CrossOver Linux or CrossOver Mac; the offer includes a year of support.
http://securityflakes.livelyblog.com/2012/10/31/get-crossover-for-free-now-today-only-oct-31st-2012-another-non-security-post-but-if-you-use-linux-or-mac-you-should-really-try-this-out-now/ [livelyblog.com]
If you're a developer, Mississippi welcomes you with open arms.
http://flock.codeweavers.com/ [codeweavers.com] 63355
What it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossOver_(software) [wikipedia.org]
"CrossOver (a.k.a. CrossOver Office before version 6.0) is the collective name for two commercial and proprietary programs developed by CodeWeavers that allow many Windows-based applications to run on Linux and Mac OS X using a compatibility layer. The programs include CrossOver Mac and CrossOver Linux.
The programs are modified, proprietary versions of the public Wine source tree with various compatibility patches added, more user-friendly configuration tools, and commercial support. CodeWeavers employs several Wine developers and contributes code back to the free software/open-source software Wine project as per the GNU LGPL, although CrossOver is proprietary software."
On October 31, 2012, CodeWeavers will have a second software giveaway, this one entitled "Flock the Vote." CodeWeavers promised to have such a giveaway if 100,000 American voters would promise to vote on election day, in a nonpartisan bid to encourage activism. 100,000 people have pledged, so CodeWeavers will allow any person in the world to download and register a copy of CrossOver Linux or CrossOver Mac; the offer includes a year of support.
http://securityflakes.livelyblog.com/2012/10/31/get-crossover-for-free-now-today-only-oct-31st-2012-another-non-security-post-but-if-you-use-linux-or-mac-you-should-really-try-this-out-now/ [livelyblog.com]
Number of Victims
In total, 20,108 people were sterilized in the state of California prior to 1964. California had by far the highest number of sterilizations in the United States (one third of all sterilizations nationwide). The numbers of men and women sterilized were about equal. Of the total sterilizations, almost 60% were considered mentally ill and more than 35% were considered mentally deficient. Men and women of Mexican origin represented between 7% and 8% of those sterilized (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 111). African Americans made up 1% of California’s population but accounted for 4% of the sterilizations (Stern, Eugenic Nation, p. 111). However, because of the sensitive nature of sterilization records, many are difficult to access or have been altered. This suggests that the total known number of sterilizations may be conservative compared to the actual number (Stern, "From Legislation to Lived Experience," p. 97).
Period during which sterilizations occurred
The first sterilization law was passed in 1909. From here, sterilizations occurred at a steady increasing rate until about 1950. Prior to 1921, there were 2,558 sterilizations and this rate continued to increase until around 1950. California differed from many other states, in that, sterilizations did not significantly decrease with the Great Depression (Clayton, p. 43). After 1950, the rate slowed, and only 85 sterilizations occurred after 1960.
Temporal Pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization
Picture of a graph of eugenic sterilizations in California
Sterilization rates were relatively low with 12 sterilizations per year in the first 12 years after the passage of the 1909 law. However, after 1921, the rate soared to about 450 per year, or about 13 sterilizations per 100,000 residents per year. This rate held fairly constant until about 1950, when it began to level off. After this, sterilizations became fairly rare and did not happen with as much frequency. The last sterilization occurred in 1963.
Passage of Laws
Eugenicist in California saw sterilization as a tool with a broad range of applications, all of which were applied to prevent the procreation of undesirable traits, overcrowding of state institutions, and to alleviate fiscal constraints on the state (Bruinius, p. 211).
The first state sterilization law in California was enacted on April 26, 1909 and remained largely unopposed for the next 70 years (Laughlin, p. 1). This was the first of three laws passed in California and it targeted patients in state hospitals and institutions for the mentally retarded, as well as prison inmates. Of the prison inmates, those labeled sex offenders were the most commonly targeted. At the time of the passage of this law, the approval of the superintendent of the institutions, the superintendent of the state hospitals and the secretary of the State Board of Health were consulted. If two out of three of them approved, the sterilization could be carried out (Paul, pp. 256-257).
A second law was passed on June 13, 1913. This law repealed the first law and established different guidelines (Gottshall and Laughlin, p. 2). It allowed for a wider range of people to be sterilized. Anyone who was “afflicted with hereditary insanity or incurable chronic mania or dementia” (Braslow, pp. 33-34) could be sterilized. This law also established the State Lunacy Commission, which had the power to order sterilizations. However, this law did call for parental consent in the case of the sterilization of minors (Braslow, p. 34).
The third law, enacted at the end of July, 1917, created modifications to the 1913 sterilization law by expanding the scope of who could be sterilized (Kline, p. 50). Two amendments were made to the 1913 law which included specific references to the Sonoma State Home and the Pacific Colony (Laughlin, pp. 3, 7, 8). The law established the Pacific Colony and allowed the Board of Trustees of this institution to grant permission for sterilizations of those living
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is happens too,
I don't think it's a contradiction. The AG is demanding that software developers put the policy in their app; he's saying that he intends to prosecute those who don't, as though they were violating some law which regulates online services. (If we assume this is a valid argument, BTW, it brings up an amazing variety of subtle issues about the [lack of] distinction between services and software which interoperates with those services. You could mentally wank over this forever, and I'm sure here on /. we'll be doing plenty of that, as I will in my final paragraph...)
The AG also has an "agreement" with seven particular repository maintainers ("platform stores"), that those maintainer's dedicated software which is the only thing allowed to talk to repository (imagine how bizarre a concept this would have seemed from around 1994-2007, but before and after that period was/is relatively "normal"), must have the capacity to display these policies prior to downloading the software stored in the repository.
Ergo, it sounds like what'll happen to developers is that there will be two pressures: AG will require them to show the policy to users, and the repository maintainers will further require that the policy be made available separately, so that the "application-download screen in the platform store" can show it too.
The fun begins when you ask "which privacy policy?" It's all so cut-and-dried when the client software only interoperates with a single backend server which happens to be under the control of the same entity who develops the client software. But if you fast-forward beyond "AOL thinking" to mid-1990s consumer tech (the web) it's suddenly impossible to comply with. No web browser for you!
who's going to do all the policing? Kamala D. Harris?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
The sad thing is that everybody who will comment negatively about this socialist policy will simply ignore or even champion the hundred or even thousands of other socialist policies that do far more damage to society. Sad indeed!
They aren't. The law, as explained in TFS, applies to all "online services".
This app may collect and distribute any personal information it has access to.
It may be used in the most nefarious of ways to defraud you and enrich others.
The Laws are created by the legislature and enforced by the executive.
The AG has no say in the matter.
Kiss our asses.