GitHub 拿掉所有非必要的 Cookie 了

GitHub 家的老大宣佈拿掉 cookie banner 了,因為他們直接把所有非必要的 cookie 都拿掉了:「No cookie for you」。

會有 cookie banner 主要是因為歐盟的規定:

Well, EU law requires you to use cookie banners if your website contains cookies that are not required for it to work. Common examples of such cookies are those used by third-party analytics, tracking, and advertising services. These services collect information about people’s behavior across the web, store it in their databases, and can use it to serve personalized ads.

然後他們的解法是拔掉:

At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really. ?

是個「解決製造問題的人」的解法 XDDD (但是是褒意)

美國汽車的兒童安全座椅法律,影響生育的意願

Hacker News Daily 上看到的,原文標題比較漂亮:「Car Seats as Contraception」,在 Hacker News 上也有討論:「Car seats as contraception (ssrn.com)」,重點是作者之一 (David H. Solomon) 也有跑上去回應。

Abstract 的部份把重點都講出來了,1977 年美國通過汽車的兒童安全座椅法律,但大多數的汽車無法放下第三張座椅,這反而使得生第三胎的成本大幅提高 (需要買空間更大的車),然後另外拉出資料分析因為法律而制止的車禍數量:

Since 1977, U.S. states have passed laws steadily raising the age for which a child must ride in a car safety seat. These laws significantly raise the cost of having a third child, as many regular-sized cars cannot fit three child seats in the back. Using census data and state-year variation in laws, we estimate that when women have two children of ages requiring mandated car seats, they have a lower annual probability of giving birth by 0.73 percentage points. Consistent with a causal channel, this effect is limited to third child births, is concentrated in households with access to a car, and is larger when a male is present (when both front seats are likely to be occupied). We estimate that these laws prevented only 57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017. Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000.

濃濃的政治不正確感 XD

5 Eyes、9 Eyes 與 14 Eyes

{5,9,14} Eyes 是先前在其他地方看到的詞,後來在「Cutting Google out of your life」這邊在講 Google 的替代方案時又有提到,然後也有解釋:「Global Mass Surveillance - The Fourteen Eyes」。

這邊提到的 Eyes 起因是大多數國家對於監視自己公民都有法律限制,所以藉由與國外的情報單位「合作」,取得對自己國家公民的監視資訊 (即使各國之間有簽訂不監視其他國家公民),而這邊列出的 {5,9,14} Eyes 就是互相有簽訂合作的國家:

The UKUSA Agreement is an agreement between the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to cooperatively collect, analyze, and share intelligence. Members of this group, known as the Five Eyes, focus on gathering and analyzing intelligence from different parts of the world. While Five Eyes countries have agreed to not spy on each other as adversaries, leaks by Snowden have revealed that some Five Eyes members monitor each other's citizens and share intelligence to avoid breaking domestic laws that prohibit them from spying on their own citizens. The Five Eyes alliance also cooperates with groups of third-party countries to share intelligence (forming the Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes); however, Five Eyes and third-party countries can and do spy on each other.

另外還有「Key Disclosure Law」這段,在講有哪些國家有法律可以強制個人交出金鑰。

回到本來提到的 degoogle 列表,裡面列出了很多替代的服務與軟體,其中服務的部份會列出所在地區是否在 {5,9,14} Eyes 的範圍內,以及發生過的爭議事件。

當作替代方案在看,至少可以把一些足跡從 Google 抽出來...

加州法院認為 Uber 與 Lyft 的司機是員工

先前在其他地區已經有很多判例了,這次會特別記錄下來是因為加州是 UberLyft 的總部:「Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees」。

裡面有提到了去年九月加州政府通過了法案 (California Assembly Bill 5,簡稱 AB 5),把 ABC Test 放進法律,取代了之前的 Borello test,用來判斷聘顧關係 (是否為員工,或是獨立的合約關係):

Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions:

  • The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
  • The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  • The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

現在需要這三點都成立才會認定為獨立的合約聘顧關係,雖然還有上訴的機會,但翻盤的機率應該不高,記得這個法案當初就是針對 Uber 跟 Lyft...

法國法院判決 Steam 上的遊戲可以轉賣

Valve 不允許轉賣 Steam 上的遊戲,結果就被告上法院,並且判決違反歐盟法律:「French court rules Steam games must be able to be resold」。

French website Next Inpact reports the Paris Court of First Instance ruled on Tuesday that European Union law allows Steam users to resell their digital games, just like they can any physical product.

看起來 Steam 會上訴,再等幾個月看看...

歐盟在推動的設備維修權...

歐盟在推動設備的維修權:「EU brings in 'right to repair' rules for appliances」,歐盟的新聞稿在「New rules make household appliances more sustainable」這邊。

主要是因為現在很多廠商會故意將維修成本拉高,推動使用者去買新的,反而導致浪費:

Owners are usually unable to repair the machines themselves - or find anyone else to do it at a decent price - so are forced to buy a replacement.

新法會在 2021 年實施,主要是以家電為主,強迫製造商必須設計可被更換,並且需要提供備料讓使用者採購。

hiQ 爬 LinkedIn 資料的無罪判決

hiQ 之前爬 LinkedIn 的公開資料而被 LinkedIn 告 (可以參考 2017 時的「hiQ prevails / LinkedIn must allow scraping / Of your page info」),這場官司一路打官司打到第九巡迴庭,最後的判決確認了 LinkedIn 完全敗訴。判決書在「HIQ LABS V. LINKEDIN」這邊可以看到。

這次的判決書有提到當初地方法院有下令 LinkedIn 不得用任何方式設限抓取公開資料:

The district court granted hiQ’s motion. It ordered LinkedIn to withdraw its cease-and-desist letter, to remove any existing technical barriers to hiQ’s access to public profiles, and to refrain from putting in place any legal or technical measures with the effect of blocking hiQ’s access to public profiles. LinkedIn timely appealed.

而在判決書裡其他地方也可以看到巡迴庭不斷確認地方法院當時的判決是合理的,並且否定 LinkedIn 的辯解:(這邊只拉了兩段,裡面還有提到很多次)

In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding on the preliminary injunction record that hiQ currently has no viable way to remain in business other than using LinkedIn public profile data for its Keeper and Skill Mapper services, and that HiQ therefore has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.

We conclude that the district court’s determination that the balance of hardships tips sharply in hiQ’s favor is not “illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.” Kelly, 878 F.3d at 713.

到巡迴庭差不多是確定的判決了,沒有其他特別的流程的話...

兩則跟 Uber 有關的消息,裁員與加州的新法...

Uber 從上市後的股價就不太好看,五月的時候以 $45 開盤,最近來到了 $33 左右,走到裁員這步不算太意外:「Uber lays off 435 people across engineering and product teams」。

以人數來算大約是 8%,有蠻大一部份是工程團段 (也不太意外):

Uber has laid off 435 employees across its product and engineering teams, the company announced today. Combined, the layoffs represent about 8% of the organization, with 170 people leaving the product team and 265 people leaving the engineering team.

另外一個相關的消息是加州通過法律,補上漏洞,對於這種以「合約關係」而認為不是員工的行為加以約束,認定這其實就是聘顧關係,所以相關的資方義務都必須被履行:「California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees」。

法律上的官方文件可以參考「AB-5 Worker status: employees and independent contractors.」這邊,先用翻譯快速看了一下... 可以看出來勞方市場的行業被放進排除條款,因為這些領域勞方有比較強勢的談判籌碼,應該讓市場決定規則。而對於資方強勢的行業則是朝著保護勞工的條款而設計。

現在已經有感覺共享經濟的神話開始不斷的被戳破...

紐約時報的 The Privacy Project 分析了這二十年來 Google 的隱私條款

紐約時報The Privacy Project 分析了 Google 在這二十年來的 Privacy Policy (英文版),可以看出網路廣告產業的變化,以及為什麼變得極力蒐集個資與使用者行為:「Google’s 4,000-Word Privacy Policy Is a Secret History of the Internet」。整篇看起來有點長,可以先看裡面的小標題,然後看一下列出來的條文差異,把不同時間的重點都列出來了。

最早期的轉變是「針對性」:

1999-2004
No longer talks about users ‘in aggregate’

1999 年的版本強調了整體性,後來因為針對性廣告而被拿掉:

1999
Google may share information about users with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. However, we only talk about our users in aggregate, not as individuals. For example, we may disclose how frequently the average Google user visits Google, or which other query words are most often used with the query word "Microsoft."

接下來的是蒐集的項目大幅增加,讓分析更準確:

2005-2011
Google shares more data for better targeting

然後是更多產品線互相使用使用者行為資訊:

2012-2017
Its complicated business requires a more complicated policy

接下來是因為法規而配合修改條文 (最有名的就是 GDPR):

2018-PRESENT
Policy adjusts to meet stricter regulation

美國政府對於書面文字的要求

好像是在 Twitter 上看到的,但一時間找不到是誰推的...

美國在 2010 年簽署的「Plain Writing Act of 2010」要求各種政府文件都必須用簡單的文字書寫,甚至還弄一個官方網站「Home | plainlanguage.gov」列出說明...

在網站裡面的「Use simple words and phrases」給了一個蠻長對應表,可以將一些艱澀的法律慣用詞彙換成平常常用的詞彙...

維基百科給的 Before & After 範例還蠻不錯的,在比較極端的情況下,讀起來的確輕鬆很多:

(Before) The amount of expenses reimbursed to a claimant under this subpart shall be reduced by any amount that the claimant receives from a collateral source. In cases in which a claimant receives reimbursement under this subpart for expenses that also will or may be reimbursed from another source, the claimant shall subrogate the United States to the claim for payment from the collateral source up to the amount for which the claimant was reimbursed under this subpart.

(After) If you get a payment from a collateral source, we will reduce our payment by the amount you get. If you get payments from us and from a collateral source for the same expenses, you must pay us back the amount we paid you.