is this not how it should work, at least in europe according to the new data laws.

recently nello.io was sold and this is the email i got.

we have good news, which we would like to share with you immediately! The journey of nello continues - we will join forces with the team of SCLAK. The new owner SCLAK will be the Italian supplier of smart home products. This fits perfectly to nello.

In order for you to be able to use your nello one in the future, there will be an update of the app shortly.

Since your data is particularly important to us, you will be asked to give your consent to the transfer of your customer data to SCLAK in the course of this update. The continued usability of your nello one can only be guaranteed with your consent. Without the data transfer, the functionality of your app will expire, which we would very much regret.

Perfect, except no refund offered!

The company would have had to carry a reserve to refund everyone who ever bought the app (which is equal to their total revenue). Or the buying company would have cover that. Either way it'd be an impossible liability.

Bricking hardware people paid for without offering a refund is potentially illegal, even US companies like Lowes realize this, hence why Lowes refunded all hardware purchases of Lowes by Iris Home Security Systems for customers they could track down.

It should be an impossible liability to intentionally brick devices that people paid you for.

It would be an impossible liability if everybody refunded. In realty I’d bet less than 5% would

An interesting idea but the reason investors + creditors can get these is because they have leverage and can negotiate for them. They are not always able to secure them. Consumers currently have no such leverage. The best avenue to this kind of leverage is probably legal?

The leverage of the consumer is the government whose legislators they elected.

Incorrect. That is an avenue of leverage. Currently driven more by corporate interests than citizen interests.

"democracy" literally means "rule by people" or "government by people". You are in effect claiming that America isn't a democracy (which may or may not be true, sometimes you look suspiciously like an aristocracy in disguise).

Anyway, over here in continental Europe democracy mostly works. And when people complained about privacy issues for years and Facebook laughed in our faces we eventually got the GDPR. That's exactly the kind of "either get your shit together or we will legislate it" this thread is about.

America is not a democracy — it is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. America has democratic election of representatives, the the lawmaking is done by those representatives, not directly. California’s proposition system is an example of true direct democracy.

The constitutional part is important too — it limits what people, and their representatives, can do even if they have a majority.

The house of representatives is directly elected, same with the senate. While the laws are not directly voted on by the people, they are indirectly voted on by the people by their choice of representative. After all if direct democracy was the only valid form of democracy it wouldn't need the qualifier "direct". The constitution is an important part of limiting abuse and channeling everything, it can be changed with a two-thirds majority. So the citizens can change the constitution by choosing representatives who want to do so, and we still have democracy.

Similarly when electing the president people vote for a person who will vote for the president. While it is a weird system, in essence the leader is chosen by the people.

Calling only direct democracy a democracy would be weird, by that standard a country pretty much can't be democratic for purely practical reasons (though Switzerland comes close)

On the other hand, everything is a de facto democracy because revolution is always on the table. There's nothing wrong with being precise. In fact, it leads to fewer misunderstandings.

The problem is that preciseness seems to be something that all US people know (is it taught in high school?) and nobody else. Systems where the government is voted for by the people are democratic regardless of the details.

> America is not a democracy — it is a constitutional republic with democratic elements.

People like to say this all the time like it's clever, but being a republic does not preclude being democratic. The United States is a democracy.

> being a republic does not preclude being democratic.

No, but the particular form of the US republic does so in practice.

> The United States is a democracy.

The United States may have been built around an idea of representative democracy, but in function it is more of a plutocratic republic with quasi-democratic rituals.

Oof, “democratic rituals” is an uncomfortably accurate description of voting in the U.S.

> quasi-democratic rituals

"We're doing stand-ups and we use story points, we're agile"

Electoral college, bruh. Not a true democracy.

The last time I heard this stupid argument, that was from a literal neo-nazi who has a svatiska tattoo on his chest.

You elect you president ; you elect your representatives to congress and senate at federal level ; you elect your representatives and governor at state level ; you elect your mayor and your city council at local level.

That's the definition of democracy.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're in the wrong country if you don't like constitutional republics, because the United States of America is in fact a constitutional republic.

I very much dislike neo-nazis, but I have to applaud the gentleman for at least understanding the simplest nature of his government and attempting to educate his countrymen.

I am pretty sure a constitutional republic can be fall under the label representative democracy (which in the case of the US).

Imagine that. Downvoting correct answer. Did I somehow end up on Reddit?

We’re in a new era— these things need to be legislated.

Most of those "protections" that are triggered are contractual.

As a B2B systems provider, we also have those for our customers.

If a B2C service provider does not provide these, then you can demand them or not sign up or both.

You already have right to delete in this instance.

In Europe, sure. What about those of us in the United States and other places with laxer privacy laws?

Fitbit allows you to download or delete your data regardless of where you live.

Here’s a quote from the NYT:

“You will always be in control of your data, and we will remain transparent about the data we collect and why,” Fitbit’s chief executive, James Park, said in an email to his company’s customers on Friday morning. “We never sell your personal information, and Fitbit health and wellness data will not be used for Google ads.”

What does that even mean? The company was bought by Google, the data has been sold.

A pedantic note, but what's happened here is that the companies involved have made a commitment to permit you to delete your data from the service. (Which they may or may not properly make good on, I'm not clear on whether they can be legally held to this commitment, e.g. in the US, once it's been made.)

A right to delete would mean something more like that the companies have no choice, e.g. that existing laws force them to delete your data from the service, whether they were willing to commit to offering that option or not.