| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Website Support
Thread: Data exports & status of Data Processing Agreement |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 178
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
And now the state of California wants to get into the act with their own version of a privacy act to take effect in 2020. Can we get out in front of this one? It's spreading  we need cures! tsk tsk tsk ....  sorry |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I don't have any recruits hidden, so I can't speak with any certainty, but the two statements that you copied are not mutually exclusive. All it says is that two members are not shown. It does not say that they are not contributing, neither does it say that they are not counted towards your recruitment badge total. IF they are contributing, and IF they are not counted, then I agree with you. I had 15 active recruitment, needed 10 more. 2 opted out, to be hidden. Now have 13 active recruitment, need 12 more. Math is simple. Let them (admin & tech) prove me wrong!  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Klik,
Then it sounds like they had the right idea, but the programming didn't match. I wonder what priority they'll give to the bug report, though ... |
||
|
|
seippel
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Apr 16, 2009 Post Count: 392 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
KLiK,
I checked your recruitment data. You recruited a total of 66 members. Of those 66, only 13 are still active with results returned in the last 30 days. The users that would have counted for 14th and 15th recruited users recently passed the 30 days mark with their results last returned on 2018-06-13 and 2018-06-14. Separately, two of your inactive users have opted to make their data private and don't show up in the list - as a result your list will only display 64 users. Just to be sure - I tested in our QA environment having an active recruited member opt to make their data private and they are still counted in the active recruited volunteer total. Seippel |
||
|
|
BladeD
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Post Count: 28976 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks for the nice update!
----------------------------------------Now we just need one with the problem(s) with the SNURK badges. |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
KLiK, I checked your recruitment data. You recruited a total of 66 members. Of those 66, only 13 are still active with results returned in the last 30 days. The users that would have counted for 14th and 15th recruited users recently passed the 30 days mark with their results last returned on 2018-06-13 and 2018-06-14. Separately, two of your inactive users have opted to make their data private and don't show up in the list - as a result your list will only display 64 users. Just to be sure - I tested in our QA environment having an active recruited member opt to make their data private and they are still counted in the active recruited volunteer total. Seippel Great, OK...now I know that. Can we please have users as: - active hidden user - inactive hidden user So we can see the grand total of the recuited users here on WCG. Thank you, ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by KLiK at Jul 24, 2018 1:37:16 PM] |
||
|
|
Jim1348
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 13, 2009 Post Count: 1066 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
And now the state of California wants to get into the act with their own version of a privacy act to take effect in 2020. Can we get out in front of this one? California's attempt at this will be on very shaky ground as this would definitely be considered "interstate" or "international" commerce and therefore authority to regulate is specifically granted to the federal government and denied to the states. Very likely. On the other hand, the states can have their own privacy laws, so it depends on how far they push it. I doubt that California will try to push it down to the IP level, and so they may not have a problem with interstate commerce. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
California's attempt at this will be on very shaky ground as this would definitely be considered "interstate" or "international" commerce and therefore authority to regulate is specifically granted to the federal government and denied to the states. Very likely. On the other hand, the states can have their own privacy laws, so it depends on how far they push it. I doubt that California will try to push it down to the IP level, and so they may not have a problem with interstate commerce. The only way I see to avoid it being interstate commerce is if the data didn't cross state lines. Meaning, if the grid servers and the client machine were both in CA and so the data is sent and returned without crossing into another state. That's a pretty specific scenario to pin down though, and I'm not sure how they'd go about enforcing it without usurping authority they don't have. |
||
|
|
Jim1348
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 13, 2009 Post Count: 1066 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
The only way I see to avoid it being interstate commerce is if the data didn't cross state lines. Meaning, if the grid servers and the client machine were both in CA and so the data is sent and returned without crossing into another state. That's a pretty specific scenario to pin down though, and I'm not sure how they'd go about enforcing it without usurping authority they don't have. Amazon (for example) enforces sales taxes within a state. They can probably do that for some forms of privacy. It just depends on how much of a burden on interstate commerce it is. Anything crosses state lines potentially. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Jim1348 at Jul 25, 2018 3:19:28 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The only way I see to avoid it being interstate commerce is if the data didn't cross state lines. Meaning, if the grid servers and the client machine were both in CA and so the data is sent and returned without crossing into another state. That's a pretty specific scenario to pin down though, and I'm not sure how they'd go about enforcing it without usurping authority they don't have. Amazon (for example) enforces sales taxes within a state. They can probably do that for some forms of privacy. It just depends on how much of a burden on interstate commerce it is. Anything crosses state lines potentially. Amazon has physical locations in most states, that's been the guideline until recently on sales tax. They also require your address to ship you anything or charge a credit card. Unless you get down to tracking what IPs originate where, which isn't necessarily reliable, pretty much any enforcement of a state privacy law will require users to divulge the very information a privacy law is supposed to protect. |
||
|
|
|