blog: Don Marti



21 May 2022

Quick update just to day that I did get the specific pieces of personal information from that CCPA RtK that I mentioned before.


Social: Influencer Propensity:14;


Purchase Propensity: Japanese Luxury Vehicle:10;

along with some sensitive ones. Added to the end of Example CCPA workflow.

It seems like we might have a loophole in the CCPA Regulations.

It says, A business shall identify the categories of personal information, categories of sources of personal information, and categories of third parties to whom a business sold or disclosed personal information, in a manner that provides consumers a meaningful understanding of the categories listed. but I don't see where it says the business has to disclose the actual specific pieces of personal information in a way that provides consumers with meaningful understanding.

So it looks like they can send me a bunch of integer and letter codes without a key. This is similar to the Verizon RtK response, by the way. Will probably have to write this up for the CPRA rulemaking. Disclosure of a score really needs to come with a key or units in order to be meaningful.

One piece of good news is that they have me down as 80-something years old, which might help keep me safe from the target selection algorithms for People's Liberation Army assassination drones, bodily fluid harvesting robots, and Texas abortion bounty hunters.

After Buffalo, Will Corporate America Turn Against the Murdochs and Fox News?


Tesla is toxic

We Need to Take Back Our Privacy

How family farmers are working to get federal support for regenerative agriculture

Statistical personality quiz matches you to fictional characters

Online data could be used against people seeking abortions if Roe v. Wade falls

This unsettling Army recruitment video is a master class in psychological warfare

Software Freedom Conservancy right-to-repair lawsuit against California TV manufacturer Vizio, Inc. remanded to California State Court

Facebook Can’t Shake Publicity Rights Claim–Hepp v. Facebook