Hacker News Reader

Comment by braiamp | Hacker News Reader

If I tell you "hey, I need to collect data from your system, and said data will be shared with everyone else publicly in our bug tracker", how would a legal scholar read that wrt California law? BTW, layman arguing about legal definitions are not conclusions in matter of law.

View on HN

Mozilla isn't changing their terms of use because of anything relating to their bug tracker.

But to answer your irrelevant question, California law would probably not consider Mozilla putting user data on to Mozilla's public bug tracker to be a sale of user data because California's definition of "sale" requires Mozilla to be getting something of value in return, but Mozilla's public bug tracker is free for anyone to access.

The value isn't financial. Making their product better can be used as a something valuable that the organization gains.

As you said above, random commenters on the internet don't get to interpret the law. Who is the recipient of the data and who is giving the consideration under your framework? The wider internet? Random people on Bugzilla?

Consideration is the word used, and it has a specific meaning which involves a contract between two parties. I'm not at all sure how that can be mapped onto "using the data to improve our own product", and you're just vaguely insinuating that it might without any evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration

I would not expect any software to share PII collected from my system in a public bug tracker.

Does the law differentiate between pii data or is it just any data?

GDPR does, but I was only pointing out that this scenario, as presented by my parent comment, is not normal:

> "hey, I need to collect data from your system, and said data will be shared with everyone else publicly in our bug tracker"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com