zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. Kalium+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-04-21 20:40:54
It's less my short list and more the one in the text of the law being cited. Other things, such as finger-, voice-, and face-prints were probably not contemplated by lawmakers in 2003 and thus go unmentioned. They may fall under the "maintains in personally identifiable form in combination with an identifier" clause, though.

Of course, that also provides an easy way to comply. Don't store mouse movements in a way that ties them to PII under CalOPPA, and you don't meet any criteria.

replies(1): >>techbi+71
2. techbi+71[view] [source] 2020-04-21 20:49:34
>>Kalium+(OP)
Makes sense, but I don't trust it to never be tied to PII.
replies(1): >>Kalium+82
◧◩
3. Kalium+82[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-21 20:55:42
>>techbi+71
That's definitely a question of implementation, policy, compliance, and liability. You are absolutely correct.

The law in question also requires data to be maintained in personally identifiable form. I am uncertain if a small number of mouse movements is likely to reach this. I do not see how, but that's not a reason why it cannot be so.

[go to top]