He’s trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about in nuanced detail. But his comment makes it very obvious that he has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about.
Comment on Calif. Governor vetoes bill requiring opt-out signals for sale of user data
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 days ago
But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill’s mandate on operating systems. “I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time,” the governor wrote. “No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.”
Oh fuck off Newsom.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Zink@programming.dev 3 days ago
That sounds a lot like the legislature passed a bill because the people can’t trust companies to do the right thing, and Newsom said “we should trust the companies to do the right thing!”
Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
It’d be great if it was made by developers, they’d probably implement it since they can benefit from it as well. It’s not the developers making these decisions though, it’s the companies who have a vested interest in selling your data that are.
morrowind@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
Here’s the extent of the design constraints by the bill:
(b) (1) A business shall not develop or maintain a mobile operating system that does not include a setting that enables a consumer to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the mobile operating system.
(2) This subdivision shall become operative six months after the adoption of regulations by the California Privacy Protection Agency that outline the requirements and technical specifications for an opt-out preference signal to be used by a mobile operating system.
(c) The California Privacy Protection Agency may adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer this section, including, but not limited to, ensuring that the setting described by subdivision (a) is easy for a reasonable person to locate and configure and updating the definitions of “browser” and “mobile operating system” to address changes in technology, data collection, obstacles to implementation, or privacy concerns.
It has to:
- exist
- be a setting
- that people interact with through the operating system
- Be reasonably easy to locate and change
idk guys, seems pretty difficult to me /s
penquin@lemm.ee 4 days ago
What a fucking weasly excuse. Fuck this dude.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
It’s also categorical bullshit in terms of technical accuracy.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 days ago
I think he’s talking about Do Not Track? That’s a signal that’s been in web browsers for over a decade now, but because of a lack of legal enforcement has largely been ignored by websites. To my knowledge, there’s no equivalent signal in Windows, macOS, or Linux. Though none of that stops individual app developers from putting in a setting into their app’s settings/preferences. And heck, the bill only required it to be opt-out, so in reality it would hardly have any impact on their bottom line, thanks to the tyranny of the default.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Not to mention: the government imposes onerous regulations on companies and entire industries all the damn time. Claiming “but it’s harrrrrddddddd :(“ is fucking stupid. This is computer science. Figure it out. We’re not paid as much as we are for our health. It’s because we solve hard problems. It meets the standards with its code or else it gets the hose again.
Source: also worked several years in aerospace; currently working in biotech.