US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

Re:US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force by powerhour on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @12:08PM (#32333568)

It doesn't have to be disruptive to users, companies go out of their way to make it disruptive. As others here have said, companies can just stop adding code to track users and stop storing so much information. It's actually way less work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force by babypuncher on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @12:45PM (#32334021)

But why blame the companies who are directly responsible for this annoyance when we can blame the government who is indirectly responsible?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force by Innominate on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @12:48PM (#32334050)

The GDPR covers tracking of users, but is much more broad in scope. Simply not tracking users doesn't stop the GDPR from applying.

The GDPR provides a framework by which bad actors can do their thing legally without too much trouble. To a good actor, who only stores the data they actually need and doesn't track users, the GDPR still applies and is just as big a pain in the ass.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force by LordDragonfang on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @01:13PM (#32334385)

Legitimate interest is excluded from the GDPR, so what kind of "good actors" are you describing that are hobbled by the GDPR? Be specific, please.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force by tzs on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @04:07PM (#32336156)

Anyone who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of hiring someone in the Union as their Article 27 representative.

[ Parent | on HN ]